Re: [ippm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8912 (6758)

["MORTON JR., AL" <[e-mail]>]

So, I miss-counted the zeroes?  I guess my vision is going for stuff like this, because I tried to count again yesterday and the original looked ok...

It should be 9 digits (8 zeros and a 1) to the right of the decimal place.
Al

From: Martin Duke <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 11:25 AM
To: MORTON JR., AL <[e-mail]>
Cc: RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; D'SOUZA, KEVIN L <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [ippm] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8912 (6758)

Al, can you rephrase this? The proposed text has 9 digits (8 zeros and a 1) to the right of the decimal place.

On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 12:07 PM MORTON JR., AL <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Sorry, but the original text is what we intended.

"fraction digits = 9" refers to the digits to the right of the decimal place.

Al

> -----Original Message-----
> From: RFC Errata System <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2021 3:40 AM
> To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; MORTON JR., AL <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; D'SOUZA, KEVIN L <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
> Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8912 (6758)
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8912, "Initial
> Performance Metrics Registry Entries".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.rfc-<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.rfc->
> editor.org/errata/eid6758__;!!BhdT!0sOKD4K1QvzSFuTr19kOCaZcs09P3P_d2_LwuoM9aOr<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/editor.org/errata/eid6758__;!!BhdT!0sOKD4K1QvzSFuTr19kOCaZcs09P3P_d2_LwuoM9aOr__;!!BhdT!wk7uBzVHYZmqOMxnneSdA2hPTFsqF2OQKyB861yDcdAvcIVt5G1A5vak8Qk_$>
> 6gv_f8a6dgdeGztmA$
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Nikolai Malykh <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>
> Section: 4.4.2
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>    Percent_LossRatio:  The numeric value of the result is expressed in
>       units of lost packets to total packets times 100%, as a positive
>       value of type decimal64 with fraction digits = 9 (see Section 9.3
>       of [RFC6020]) with a resolution of 0.0000000001.
>
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>    Percent_LossRatio:  The numeric value of the result is expressed in
>       units of lost packets to total packets times 100%, as a positive
>       value of type decimal64 with fraction digits = 9 (see Section 9.3
>       of [RFC6020]) with a resolution of 0.000000001.
>
>
>
> Notes
> -----
> An extra 0 in the value of the resolution of the loss ratio.
>
> The error is repeated in sections 7.4.2.6, 8.4.2.6, 9.4.2.4
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use
> "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a
> decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and
> edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC8912 (draft-ietf-ippm-initial-registry-16)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Initial Performance Metrics Registry Entries
> Publication Date    : November 2021
> Author(s)           : A. Morton, M. Bagnulo, P. Eardley, K. D'Souza
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : IP Performance Measurement
> Area                : Transport
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
_______________________________________________
ippm mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm__;!!BhdT!wk7uBzVHYZmqOMxnneSdA2hPTFsqF2OQKyB861yDcdAvcIVt5G1A5nTeGJyf$>