|
Menachem: Exactly so. Perhaps you can guess
where I got the text for the DESCRIPTION clause. Without an explicit or implicit
reference level, decibel (dB) is undefined as it represents a ratio. In our
case (as with the ITU document), the reference level is explicitly specified in
the UNITS clause. If it were not, it would be implied by the context. That
is, we are measuring changes in audio levels in telephone circuits. This has a
VERY long and established history (the bel is named after Alexander Graham Bell,
a decibel being one tenth of a bel). Because of this, I disagree completely
with the Bert and Dan on this because I don’t think the semantics are changed
at all. I think the context, and hence the reference level, is completely
stated. We are, after all, dealing with telephone wires. However, if one felt forced,
compelled, to be more specific, then, changing “dB” in the DESCRIPTION clause
to “dBm” would be the more accurate change. Regards, Advanced Avionics and Processor
Systems From: Menachem Dodge
[mailto:Menachem.Dodge at ecitele.com] Hi, When I look at the corresponding objects as defined in
the ITU-T G997.1: Section 7.5.1.13 Downstream Signal-to-Noise Ratio Margin
(SNRMds) The downstream signal-to-noise ratio margin is the
maximum increase in dB of the noise power received at the xTU-R, such that the
BER requirements are met for all downstream bearer channels. The downstream SNR
margin ranges from –64 dB to +63 dB with 0.1 dB steps. A special value
indicates the parameter is out of range to be represented. So this seems to indicate that dB would be the correct
units. Best Regards, Menachem -----Original Message----- > -----Original Message----- > From: adslmib-bounces at ietf.org > > Third, I doubt RFC 3278 will ever be changed.
The IESG can > amend the "Errata report" with this
explanation, perhaps, if > everyone agrees. Mike? Menachem?
Moti? > > Hope this helps! > > Regards, > Bob Ray > There are several ways to mark an errata request. Verified - practically meaning accepted as proposed Rejected Held for Document Update In this case a change in semantics cannot be just accepted
as proposed, as the accepted method to change semantics of an object
is according to the SMI rules by deprecating the old object and defining
a new one. We need however to get consensus in the WG on what is the
right solution from a technical point of view. Dan _______________________________________________ Adslmib mailing list Adslmib at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib |