search

ietf-ccamp-wg / ietf-ccamp-layer0-types-ext-RFC9093-bis

CCAMP WG repository for ietf-layer0-types-ext
3 stars 3 forks source link

Review dbm-t versus power-in-dbm data types #77

Closed italobusi closed 10 months ago

italobusi commented 1 year ago

power-in-dbm-or-null?

_Originally posted by @ju7ien in https://github.com/ietf-ccamp-wg/ietf-ccamp-layer0-types-ext-RFC9093-bis/pull/70#discussion_r1256029682_

In general it is not clear which attributes should use the dbm-t and which attribute should use the power-in-dbm (or power-in-dbm-or-null) data type

sergiobelotti commented 11 months ago

Call on 09/19-23: It is not clear which attributes should use the dbm-t and which attribute should use the power-in-dbm (or power-in-dbm-or-null) data type. Looking at the definitions of dbm-t and power-in-dbm, there was substantial agreement that power-in-dbm is more clear and preferred definition.

AP@all: to review OI YANG module, RFC9093-bis and draft-ietf-ccamp-dwdm-if-param-yang to check the usage of dbm-t and possibly convert these definition using power-in-dbm.