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

Hi -

We've reached the end of the time allocated for WG last call
on this document.

Two changes (see below) were proposed.

Are there any objections to including these two changes in an
update to draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-floats- at this time?
I do not believe that either of these changes would
necessitate a second WG last call, and that we should
then be ready for hand-off to the IESG.

(I've already noted the need for the editorial correction of
"mopdule" to "module" :-)

Randy

----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
> To: <opsawg@ietf.org>
> Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2011 9:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] WGLC draft-ietf-opsawg-mib-floats
>
> Hi -
> 
> As editor, I'd like to propose the following text to address the comments
> about endianness, to be added at the end of section 1:
> 
>   <t>
>   All of these textual conventions employ the binary interchange format
>   defined in <xref target="IEEE.754.2008"></xref>.
>   Specifically, this means that for all of them, the highest-order bit of
>   the first byte is the sign bit, with the remaining bits of the octet string
>   corresponding to the exponent and fraction parts, in network byte order.
>   </t>
> 
> As a technical contributor, I'd like to propose the following addition
> to the end of the bullet list in section 3:
>   <t>
>   Whenever these textual conventions are used in a MIB mopdule, the
>   associated DESCRIPTION clause  MUST clearly specify whether
>   denormalized numbers, NaNs ("not a number") or infinities are
>   permitted, along with any special semantics associated  with these
>   cases.  This is especially important for writeable objects.
>   </t>
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Randy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPSAWG mailing list
> OPSAWG@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg