Closed italobusi closed 2 years ago
See: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-busi-teas-te-types-update
Draft to be discussed at IETF 113: waiting for the output of that discussion
Regarding the lossless translation issue discussed in https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-client-signal-yang/issues/7#issue-1063663889
An alternative option could be to define the bandwidth as a union between the bandwidth-scientific-notation data type and the floating point data type:
In draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-11, the uint64 (in kbit/s) is used to represent the ODUflex nominal bit rate as well as the OPUflex payload rate:
The definition of the bandwidth bit rate in YANG is still under discussion. In control plane binary protocols this information is usually encoded in IEEE floating point but the bandwidth-ieee-float32 data type defined in RFC 8294 is quite unfriendly to text protocols like YANG …
The uint64 in kbps is also a bit unfriendly with large bandwidth values (think about 1Gbps in uint64)
See also:
https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/draft-ietf-ccamp-client-signal-yang/issues/7
https://github.com/tsaad-dev/te/issues/116
Maybe the bandwidth-scientific-notation defined in draft-ietf-teas-yang-l3-te-topo-12 could be a better option:
Thinking further, maybe this data type should be moved to the te-types (revision) since it has broader applicability than just packet networks
The drawback is that we create a dependency between the l1-types and another TEAS draft