Re: [netmod] [OPSAWG] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 05 October 2021 07:05 UTC
Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4198B3A07BC; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 00:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 JtQrzDurP9V1; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 00:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:32::15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BF6E3A0809; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 00:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (p5089a8ac.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.168.172]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4HNpWQ1wdXz2xgD; Tue, 5 Oct 2021 09:05:22 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <29453_1633413746_615BEA72_29453_27_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330354134E2@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2021 09:05:21 +0200
Cc: Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm@ietf.org>, "opsawg-chairs@ietf.org" <opsawg-chairs@ietf.org>, "opsawg@ietf.org" <opsawg@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <18E6E571-F161-4E00-9E37-B3952273E872@tzi.org>
References: <163334468972.18138.713043180569507281@ietfa.amsl.com> <19793_1633347247_615AE6AF_19793_6_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933035411886@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <D980989C-4292-447E-A997-BFC1B41701B4@tzi.org> <29453_1633413746_615BEA72_29453_27_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330354134E2@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/RguJKoMbXuLN7MjHgpvGID6JfQ0>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [OPSAWG] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2021 07:05:35 -0000
Hi Med, > I confirm that what I meant is "bits per second" to align with rfc8299#6.12.1. Ah. > I'm actually for more explicit units similar to what we are using in another active spec: As long as there is this confusion in YANG units, that is the only way that makes sense. One little tweak I’d have for that spec: > == > enum bit-ps { > value 2; > description > "Bits per Second (bit/s)."; > } > enum byte-ps { > value 3; > description > "Bytes per second (Byte/s)."; Maybe use the actual ISO/IEC 80000 notation here: B/s. (For those that don’t know how ISO/IEC 80000 allocates “B” for byte, the legend “Bytes per second” is unambiguous.) > } > == > > However, we are in a territory where we are trying to map as much to the above service model and hence use the same labels for the units. > > FWIW, RFC8466 used to have the following: > > = > leaf pbs { > type uint64; > units "bps"; > description > "Peak Burst Size. It is measured in bytes per > second."; > } > = > > ...which is weird. This is really errata land, as “bps” is used as the kitchen slang for “bit/s” in all other cases (along with “mbps” for Mbit/s, shudder). > This is why we don't blindly inherit that draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm and went for the following: > > leaf pbs { > type uint64; > units "bytes per second"; > description > "Peak Burst Size."; > } I think this would also benefit from “Bytes per Second (B/s)”. Grüße, Carsten > > Cheers, > Med > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> >> Envoyé : lundi 4 octobre 2021 17:50 >> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> >> Cc : Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>; The IESG >> <iesg@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm@ietf.org; opsawg- >> chairs@ietf.org; opsawg@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org >> Objet : Re: [OPSAWG] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg- >> l3sm-l3nm-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) >> >> On 2021-10-04, at 13:34, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote: >>> >>> bytes per second (bps), >> >> Whoa. >> >> I know that the IETF doesn’t usually care about precision in these things, >> but “bps” is kitchen slang for “bit/s”, so this is very confusing. >> >> (Given that we have done the work in RFC 8428 and 8798, I’d rather see >> that we use it, instead of creating more confusion at each further step. >> We do have ms and B/s in RFC 8798, because people using SenML asked for >> that.) >> >> Grüße, Carsten > > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. >
- Re: [netmod] [OPSAWG] Francesca Palombini's Discu… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [netmod] [OPSAWG] Francesca Palombini's Discu… mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [netmod] [OPSAWG] Francesca Palombini's Discu… Carsten Bormann
- Re: [netmod] [OPSAWG] Francesca Palombini's Discu… Francesca Palombini
- Re: [netmod] [OPSAWG] Francesca Palombini's Discu… Rob Wilton (rwilton)