Re: [core] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-core-senml-more-units-02.txt> (Additional Units for SenML) to Proposed Standard

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Thu, 31 October 2019 14:54 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4E0F1207FE for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 07:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CH1mHYCmReHu for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 07:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp110.iad3b.emailsrvr.com (smtp110.iad3b.emailsrvr.com [146.20.161.110]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C8A0120811 for <core@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 07:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Auth-ID: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: by smtp6.relay.iad3b.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: fluffy-AT-iii.ca) with ESMTPSA id 310AE20147; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 11:01:56 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender-Id: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: from [10.1.3.91] (d75-159-246-1.abhsia.telus.net [75.159.246.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:25 (trex/5.7.12); Thu, 31 Oct 2019 10:54:40 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_83B84691-D0C3-4EE2-B535-522055373E6F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <AM6PR0602MB3368610C8BAD09D5E938C2BEF5630@AM6PR0602MB3368.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 08:54:37 -0600
Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Ari_Ker=C3=A4nen?= <ari.keranen=40ericsson.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-core-senml-more-units@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-core-senml-more-units@ietf.org>, IETF Crazy <ietf@ietf.org>, "Gillmore, Matthew" <Matthew.Gillmore@itron.com>, "core-chairs@ietf.org" <core-chairs@ietf.org>, core <core@ietf.org>, Pete Resnick <resnick@episteme.net>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <607F8E1D-487B-49E0-A55B-131888944EDB@iii.ca>
References: <41C0F8EE-6A11-4B07-BA18-7DE106F03183@episteme.net> <CEE49F5A-E7FE-4933-BF68-E1A2EA8CEC62@ericsson.com> <DF78FB17-0DDA-471E-A28A-15AC0718F653@iii.ca> <AM6PR0602MB3368610C8BAD09D5E938C2BEF5630@AM6PR0602MB3368.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
To: Hytonen Harri <harri.hytonen@vaisala.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/iGbSKIQ01J_BoSBBq7vqS6nCgFQ>
Subject: Re: [core] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-core-senml-more-units-02.txt> (Additional Units for SenML) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:54:44 -0000


> On Oct 31, 2019, at 1:17 AM, Hytonen Harri <harri.hytonen@vaisala.com> wrote:
> 
> On Oct 30, 2019, at 17:21, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca <mailto:fluffy@iii.ca>>  wrote:
>> So let's get back to the fundamental issue. Why are we doing this? Some other SDO wants it is not really an answer. Understanding why the other SDO wants it would be a
>> good answer. Do the reasons cause more good than interoperability problems that come out of it. I tried to get info from a few other SDO about this but I failed. I’d like to
>> hear more about why we should do this. I’m not seeing big value in the saving the floating point calc on the device but perhaps there is a compelling use case where that
>> matters that I am not thinking of.
> 
> As explained before, it's not matter of saving floating point calculations, but preserving the original precision of the measurement. 
> 
> BR,
> Harri Hytonen

I am not at all understanding this. Can you work me through an example ? I suspect that you might be giving senml more credit than it deserves.