Re: [Adslmib] RFC3728 (1788) (RFC Errata System)

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>]

Hi -

> From: "Ray, Robert E. (MSFC-NNM05AB50C)" <robert.e.ray at nasa.gov>
> To: "Menachem Dodge" <Menachem.Dodge at ecitele.com>; "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca at avaya.com>; <adslmib at ietf.org>
> Cc: <smadar_t at rad.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 10:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [Adslmib] RFC3728 (1788) (RFC Errata System)
...
> 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.

Agreed.

> 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.
...

Agreed.  It's a case of the notation used in the DESCRIPTION clause
being well-understood within the specialist community, but being
potentially ambiguous outside of that community.  If the change
is deemed necessary, it's nothing more than a clarification.

Randy