Re: [OPSAWG] Review of draft-presuhn-floats-00.txt

["Randy Presuhn" <[e-mail]>]

Hi -

> From: "Juergen Quittek" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 1:53 PM
...
> >    The IEEE Standard for Floating-Point Arithmetic, IEEE 754-2008
> >    [IEEE.754.1985], provides for a variety of interchange formats for
> >    floating point numbers.  The need for three of these has been
> >    recognized in network management:
> > 
> >    o  32-bit;
> >    o  64-bit;
> >    o  128-bit.
>
> I would suggest supporting this statement with a reference:
>
>  "The need for three of these, namely
>       o  32-bit,
>       o  64-bit,
>       o  128-bit,
>    has been recognized in network management, for example, during the
>    discussion of data types for SMIng. Section 4.2.3 of the SMIng
>    Objectives [RFC3216] elaborates the need for these three floating-point
>    data types in network management protocols."

Ok, I've added words to this effect.

> > 4.  Definitions
> > 
> >   FLOAT-MIB DEFINITIONS ::= BEGIN
>
> I would suggest calling it "FLOAT-TC-MIB".
> This would be more descriptive.

Agreed, fixed.

> >   Float32 ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION
>
> Also here I would like to add a TC to the name:
> Calling it "Float32TC" would have two advantages:
>   - It would make clear that it's a TC and not an SMI data type
>    - If at any point in time there will be an SMIv3, then I am sure
>     it will have floating-point data types. We avoid future name
>     collisions if we have "TC" in the name of this one here.
>
> Obviously, the same applies to Float64 and Float128.

Agreed, fixed.

...
> Then you can use "IEEE.754.2008" as target in <xref>.

Thanks, that was exactly what I needed!  Done.

I'll spin a new draft shortly.

Randy