IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-floats

Robert Story <rstory@tislabs.com> Thu, 31 March 2011 16:27 UTC

Return-Path: <rstory@tislabs.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2806E28C141 for <opsawg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YR5JOaWse7Dx for <opsawg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from walnut.tislabs.com (walnut.tislabs.com [192.94.214.200]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 116BB28C155 for <opsawg@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nova.tislabs.com (unknown [10.66.1.77]) by walnut.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C25028B0040; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:28:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ispx.vb.futz.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by nova.tislabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C03981F8059; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:28:48 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 12:28:44 -0400
From: Robert Story <rstory@tislabs.com>
To: Juergen Quittek <ietf@quittek.at>
Message-ID: <20110331122844.7503ed87@ispx.vb.futz.org>
In-Reply-To: <4CD5A6BA-7C3C-42ED-9CBB-9ACDB3F7F77B@quittek.at>
References: <3D50A761-7279-4564-A8EA-6CBAAD62CC84@cdl.asgaard.org> <4CD5A6BA-7C3C-42ED-9CBB-9ACDB3F7F77B@quittek.at>
Organization: SPARTA
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.20.1; i386-redhat-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="PGP-SHA1"; boundary="Sig_/BgK1YUhalroYMtfXUM7U1aM"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-floats@tools.ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-floats
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 16:27:11 -0000

On Thu, 31 Mar 2011 17:15:58 +0200 Juergen wrote:
JQ> I have read the draft and have only one question:
JQ> Would the byte order (endianness) in the octet arrays be obvious to an
JQ> implementor? Or could there be incompatibilities between big-endian and
JQ> little-endian implementations?

I asked about this back in December, and got this response:

On Mon, 6 Dec 2010 13:07:18 -0800 Randy wrote:
RP>  I specifically said "interchange format"
RP> for IEEE floats, since that *does* specify that the sign bit comes
RP> first.  For a freely-available secondary reference, see
RP> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_754-2008#Interchange_formats


Robert

--
Senior Software Engineer
SPARTA (dba Cobham Analytic Soloutions)

v2.35.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status