Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Wed, 14 November 2018 08:16 UTC
Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
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 1A24312D4F0 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 00:16:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 5lawwEC_XnkU for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 00:16:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A5B8128CF3 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 00:16:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from birdie (unknown [IPv6:2001:718:1a02:1::380]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D5D6562E1A for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 09:16:08 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1542183368; bh=cJ4C6au317etSfG7UQ2BiYkx8UYGohXTLTHqxQ4AAJk=; h=From:To:Date; b=dQ2jNuk35zHxRn4ztDPD9jqrbsmM5R/CIDKCPi6l2BqNN8mL0chsO7E9BPWW/4W2J pgYgB7MzVK/DGuHpXZz5NaRzcQpnDpbx21QBzHPHy++yFJ+IsdhPbImaQ0kzzNUePE +wVvxj1MB0I3HsHdDllrk/LT+Nt+xycK1xqpjJdc=
Message-ID: <dae0f227c663bdfa105e992c1ae088c22fa545bb.camel@nic.cz>
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
To: netmod@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 09:16:08 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20181114.091024.1454093230497622054.mbj@tail-f.com>
References: <20181113140709.vwc4f3mqmmgjaluu@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <091DC7F4-0C17-4E64-85B8-8963EFBC208B@cisco.com> <1542152721437.91451@Aviatnet.com> <20181114.091024.1454093230497622054.mbj@tail-f.com>
Organization: CZ.NIC
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/au3gAZwhfxd29_BqFeiPql4De-4>
Subject: Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis
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: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 08:16:14 -0000
On Wed, 2018-11-14 at 09:10 +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Alex Campbell <Alex.Campbell@Aviatnet.com> wrote:
> > Does a percentage really need a single standard type in the first
> > place? How about "units percent;"?
>
> At this point, after hearing about how different modules have
> differing requirement on this type, I tend to agree.
+1
Or even "units %;"
Lada
>
>
> /martin
>
>
> > ________________________________________
> > From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Acee Lindem (acee)
> > <acee@cisco.com>
> > 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"
> > <netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of
> > j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> 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: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > netmod@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > netmod@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > netmod@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
--
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
- [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Balázs Lengyel
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Qin Wu
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Qin Wu
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Qin Wu
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Qin Wu
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Qin Wu
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis tom petch
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Xufeng Liu
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Balázs Lengyel
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Xufeng Liu
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Qin Wu
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Yemin (Amy)
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Yemin (Amy)
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Per Hedeland
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Qin Wu
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Per Hedeland
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Balázs Lengyel
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Alex Campbell
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Balázs Lengyel
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis tom petch
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] for a future rfc6991bis Acee Lindem (acee)