Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis

[Alex Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Does a percentage really need a single standard type in the first place? How about "units percent;"?

________________________________________
From: netmod <[e-mail]> on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, 14 November 2018 5:03 a.m.
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder; Balázs Lengyel
Cc: NETMOD WG
Subject: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis

On 11/13/18, 9:07 AM, "netmod on behalf of Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:

    On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 01:33:01PM +0000, Balázs Lengyel wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > In some cases I want a percentage without fractions. This could be defined
    > using range, by specifying the numbers 0 | 1 | 2 ... 99 | 100 in the range's
    > argument.
    >
    >     typedef percent-short {
    >       type percent { range 0 | 1 | 2 ... 99 | 100; }  // didn't type out all the 101 integer values :-)
    >     }
    >

    I guess we need to settle on a small number of percentage types that
    people find useful and then module authors hopefully find what they
    need. I am not sure that listing 101 numbers is a good pattern to use
    (although it does achieve what you want). For percentages that have no
    fraction, you likely want to derive from a base type that is efficient
    to encode for binary encodings such as CBOR.

Or simply define a type with a base type of unit8 type and a range of 0-100.

Acee





    /js

    --
    Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
    Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
    Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>

    _______________________________________________
    netmod mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod


_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod