[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Adslmib] RFC3728 (1788) (RFC Errata System)
Hi All,
I think the UNITS clause should be changed to "0.25dB"
and this is not an incompatible change.
The MIB object in question holds a noise margin value
and is expressed in dB. The MIB object does not represent
a power level, it represents a ratio of power levels.
Because the MIB object represents a ratio there is no
need to mention power levels at all in the UNITS clause
or in the DESCRIPTION clause.
I have a few comments about some of the previous posts :
>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).
I understand that it is convenient to use dBm when expressing power
levels in telephone circuits but the MIB object in question is a
noise margin, not a power level.
>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.
That change would be completely incorrect.
>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.
No need to change the SYNTAX clause.
Regards,
Scott.
On Thu, 2009-05-28 at 00:01 +0200, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote:
> 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 -----
> From: Randy Presuhn
> To: adslmib at ietf.org
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Adslmib mailing list
> Adslmib at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib