Re: RFC3728 (1788) (RFC Errata System)

Hi -

> From: "Ray, Robert E. (MSFC-NNM05AB50C)" <[email protected]>
> To: "Menachem Dodge" <[email protected]>; "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>
> 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