Re: [OPSAWG] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Carsten & Med,

Thanks for raising this.  I agree with the errata, but this will need to be hold for doc update, because we cannot create a different revision of a YANG module through the errata process.

Thanks,
Rob


From: iesg <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Francesca Palombini
Sent: 05 October 2021 15:12
To: Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; The IESG <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Thanks Carsten for noticing this! I did overlook completely that bps was being used as bytes per seconds... Thanks Med for clarifying in this document and for opening errata https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6703 . The OPS ADs are on it, I am sure.

Francesca

From: Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, 5 October 2021 at 09:05
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, The IESG <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-opsawg-l3sm-l3nm-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> Envoyé : lundi 4 octobre 2021 17:50
>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
>> Cc : Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; The IESG
>> <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; opsawg-
>> [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>> 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, [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> 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.
>