Re: RFC3728 (1788) (RFC Errata System)

Menachem:

Exactly so.  Perhaps you can guess where I got the text for the DESCRIPTION clause.

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).

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.

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.

Regards,
Bob Ray

Advanced Avionics and Processor Systems
Jacobs/ESTS
Marshall Space Flight Center
EV43, Bldg. 4487, Rm B183
(256) 544-0604 (W)


From: Menachem Dodge [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 12:00 PM
To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Ray, Robert E. (MSFC-NNM05AB50C); [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Adslmib] RFC3728 (1788) (RFC Errata System)


Hi,



When I look at the corresponding objects as defined in the ITU-T G997.1:



Section 7.5.1.13 Downstream Signal-to-Noise Ratio Margin (SNRMds)

The downstream signal-to-noise ratio margin is the maximum increase in dB of the noise power received at the xTU-R, such that the BER requirements are met for all downstream bearer channels. The downstream SNR margin ranges from -64 dB to +63 dB with 0.1 dB steps. A special value indicates the parameter is out of range to be represented.



So this seems to indicate that dB would be the correct units.



Best Regards,

Menachem

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 7:49 PM
To: Ray, Robert E. (MSFC-NNM05AB50C); [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Adslmib] RFC3728 (1788) (RFC Errata System)







> -----Original Message-----

> From: [email protected]



>

> Third, I doubt RFC 3278 will ever be changed.  The IESG can

> amend the "Errata report" with this explanation, perhaps, if

> everyone agrees.  Mike?  Menachem? Moti?

>

> Hope this helps!

>

> Regards,

> Bob Ray

>



There are several ways to mark an errata request.



Verified - practically meaning accepted as proposed

Rejected

Held for Document Update



In this case a change in semantics cannot be just accepted as proposed,

as the accepted method to change semantics of an object is according to

the SMI rules by deprecating the old object and defining a new one.



We need however to get consensus in the WG on what is the right solution

from a technical point of view.



Dan

_______________________________________________

Adslmib mailing list

[email protected]

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib

_______________________________________________
Adslmib mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib