RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-08.txt> (OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions) to Proposed Standard
"Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> Fri, 12 December 2014 18:16 UTC
Return-Path: <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66F891A872A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:16:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.734
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.734 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FF_IHOPE_YOU_SINK=2.166, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=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 obpVqb31iUDQ for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:16:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (asmtp3.iomartmail.com [62.128.201.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53CCE1A7113 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 10:16:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from asmtp3.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sBCIGQxW020939; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 18:16:26 GMT
Received: from 950129200 (dsl-sp-81-140-15-32.in-addr.broadbandscope.com [81.140.15.32]) (authenticated bits=0) by asmtp3.iomartmail.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id sBCIGOSS020926 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 12 Dec 2014 18:16:25 GMT
From: Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
To: "'Acee Lindem (acee)'" <acee@cisco.com>, "'t.p.'" <daedulus@btconnect.com>
References: <018b01d014ce$06215290$1263f7b0$@olddog.co.uk> <07ae01d01636$ac853340$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <89C1D2C3-DC24-4A8F-84F4-EB6CC7DC829D@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <89C1D2C3-DC24-4A8F-84F4-EB6CC7DC829D@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-08.txt> (OSPF Traffic Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions) to Proposed Standard
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 18:16:18 -0000
Message-ID: <064e01d01637$bab52370$301f6a50$@olddog.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQH7aZJoLW9pR6UpYfYZQ/fa30AMkQKKitWoAuAgmOqcCkbUsA==
Content-Language: en-gb
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1576-7.5.0.1018-21172.001
X-TM-AS-Result: No--27.288-10.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--27.288-10.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: C/snMIRQLS0zx9GDMr0HvzYTypjB3iDVuikHZcC6ceANCeoqvyCV6TMs wZYlrvM/95k33ne9ui5ssXL1lGIKHXtnPxQhmlj74EprSlQmFqC3dp6DuD+6wC62hjZS0WoYV1W FxTQLu/h/UPQrHwFh9xEEGnEQ6gEL1RbX+21X57O628cXbnOhT8+Yc0J1J7B2RJWmeOMHa+Qvc8 syVBJ2ZIV94CQg4OZkQAXzQEWldsFw08wUkhf6c0g5Iem1vm3Hh8Ytn75ClDPICb95lYQ6SplfI IoJIzJ5kZbSbjboRzdDnqZ83klHVznRPRTKkJHBVo6mn+xXmdU6En2bnefhoBjQD3m2MCf7N+rV t/54QYraFM5TPGLdCLPLdTmpiQNZepAgRaj4rlvil2r2x2PwtdMNeBxSUI2jCmZiYUUf05gTBrT 5FMhW3Z7oAxXLnH7pNSUU9S0ljvby+NTnBotKTh3EEAbn+GRbfS0Ip2eEHny+qryzYw2E8M8943 oc3p3sq7rFUcuGp/G8QIu4z6HhEH7cGd19dSFd
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/daYYnxcu8BzYG6g_2U2uUoPxjjs
Cc: draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions.all@tools.ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: adrian@olddog.co.uk
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 18:16:34 -0000
Good catch Tom, Acee, the trick is to go to 6340 and look in the references :-) [IEEE.754.2008] Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, "Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic", IEEE Standard 754, August 2008. A > -----Original Message----- > From: Acee Lindem (acee) [mailto:acee@cisco.com] > Sent: 12 December 2014 18:14 > To: t.p. > Cc: adrian@olddog.co.uk; draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions.all@tools.ietf.org; > ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions-08.txt> (OSPF Traffic > Engineering (TE) Metric Extensions) to Proposed Standard > > Hi Tom, > > On Dec 12, 2014, at 1:08 PM, t.p. <daedulus@btconnect.com> wrote: > > > On the question of Floating-Point, there is now 754-2008, which is a > > tighter spec and is used in RFC6340. > > What is 754-2008? > > Thanks, > Acee > > > > > > > At a tangent, the issue of floating-point support has surfaced a number > > of times in YANG and, to date, has always been rejected, reckoning that > > suppport for 64-bit decimal is adequate for data modelling. The > > interactions with XPath (which is used as a basis for YANG constraint > > statements), where floating-point is allowed, have caused a number of > > discussions, some ongoing, about the comparison of a floating-point > > number to a 64-bit decimal one. Something to be aware of should you ever > > want to model this in YANG. > > > > Tom Petch > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Adrian Farrel" <adrian@olddog.co.uk> > > To: <draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensions.all@tools.ietf.org> > > Cc: <ospf@ietf.org>; <ietf@ietf.org> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 11:07 PM > > > >> All, > >> > >> I reviewed this document as AD and found a few small points that I > > have asked > >> the authors to address as IETF last call comments. > >> > >> Adrian > >> > >> === > >> > >> Please look for places where you have "proposed" something and change > >> that to "defined". > >> > >> --- > >> > >> It would be good to include a reference for encoding floating point > >> integers. The usual is (I think)... > >> > >> IEEE, "IEEE Standard for Binary Floating-Point Arithmetic", > >> Standard 754-1985, 1985 (ISBN 1-5593-7653-8). > >> > >> --- > >> > >> Section 4.2.5 > >> > >> Implementations MAY also permit the configuration of a static (non > >> dynamic) offset value (in microseconds) to be added to the measured > >> delay value, to facilitate the communication of operator specific > >> delay constraints. > >> > >> On the third reading I got it! I'm slow (I have a high delay :-) > >> > >> The point here is that the measured value and the static value are > > added > >> together and the sum is transmitted in this field. I'd suggest... > >> > >> Implementations MAY also permit the configuration of a static (non > >> dynamic) offset value (in microseconds) to be added to the measured > > > >> delay value before encoding into this TLV, to facilitate the > >> communication of operator specific delay constraints. > >> > >> Similarly in 4.2.6. > >> > >> --- > >> > >> 4.2.7 appears out of sequence. But since it repeats the content of > >> 4.2.4 I suggest you merge them and talk about the plurality of fields. > >> > >> --- > >> > >> Section 7 > >> > >> "Sections 6 and 7 provide" should be 5 and 6. > >> > >> --- > >> > >> Section 10 > >> > >> "As per (RFC3630), unrecognized TLVs should be silently ignored" > >> > >> There has been confusion about what 3630 means by "silently ignored". > >> In particular, some enthusiastic implementations thought this meant > > the > >> TLVs should be stripped from the LSA before it is propagated. I think > > it > >> is worth the few words to explicitly state that this is not the case. > >> > >> --- > >> > >> Section 13 > >> > >> RFC 4203 is used in a normative way, please move it to the other > >> section. > >> > >> > >> > >
- RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensi… Adrian Farrel
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensi… t.p.
- RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensi… Adrian Farrel
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensi… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensi… Randy Presuhn
- RE: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensi… Adrian Farrel
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensi… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensi… t.p.
- Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ospf-te-metric-extensi… Acee Lindem (acee)