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

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca at avaya.com>]

If the change is in the DESCRIPTION clause that this can probably be
considered as a clarification and included in a Verified errata.
However, this is not what the errata requester asked for, and we also
received advice from Moti supporting the change as requested by Smadar
(in the UNITS clause). 

Dan
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: adslmib-bounces at ietf.org 
> [mailto:adslmib-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:36 PM
> To: adslmib at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Adslmib] RFC3728 (1788) (RFC Errata System)
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Adslmib mailing list
> Adslmib at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
>