Re: RFC3728 (1788) (RFC Errata System)
"Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" <[email protected]> Thu, 28 May 2009 00:01:19 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.adslmib |
|---|---|
| Organization | Consultant |
| Message-ID | <85564A6DFFF241389BA937ABAE409E5B@BertLaptop> |
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: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 8:36 PM 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib