|
I can possibly live with updatinmg the description
clause.
Burt the reported proposal for the fix was going to change
Integer32
to Gaug32, or so I understood. That would be really bad I
think.
If the SYNTAXes and the value-ranges) all stay the
same,
then I guess that formally it would still be a semantic
change, but
it is a matter of wording change that I could probably
accept
if the WG really has consensus on this.
Bert
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 8:36
PM
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
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus
Database: 270.12.42/2137 - Release Date: 05/27/09
07:50:00
|