[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Adslmib] RFC3728 (1788) (RFC Errata System)
Hi,
So I believe there is now consensus that:
The UNITS clause should be changed to "0.25dB" (instead of "0.25dBm").
No other changes are needed to any of the other clauses.
Are there any objections to accepting this errata?
Best Regards,
Menachem
-----Original Message-----
From: adslmib-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:adslmib-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Scott Baillie
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 8:07 PM
To: Bert Wijnen (IETF)
Cc: adslmib at ietf.org
Subject: 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
_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
Adslmib at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib