Re: RFC3728 (1788) (RFC Errata System)

If the change is in the DESCRIPTION clause that this can probably be
considered as a clarification and included in a Verified errata.
However, this is not what the errata requester asked for, and we also
received advice from Moti supporting the change as requested by Smadar
(in the UNITS clause). 

Dan
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 9:36 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Adslmib] 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Adslmib mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
>