Re: RFC3728 (1788) (RFC Errata System)

Yes. 
 
Smadar - can you edit the text of the errata and list all the MIB
objects where this change applies? 
 
Thanks and Regards,
 
Dan
 


________________________________

	From: Menachem Dodge [mailto:[email protected]] 
	Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 1:20 PM
	To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Bert Wijnen (IETF); Scott Baillie
	Cc: [email protected]
	Subject: RE: [Adslmib] RFC3728 (1788) (RFC Errata System)
	
	

	Hello Dan,

	 

	Yes, I believe this is the consensus.

	 

	However, at the end of the Errata report it states that:

	 

	" Same problem for more MIB objects in the RFC."

	 

	I'm wondering whether the Errata shouldn't specify all the MIB
objects that need correction.

	 

	 

	Best Regards,

	Menachem

	 

	From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan) [mailto:[email protected]] 
	Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 12:48 PM
	To: Bert Wijnen (IETF); Menachem Dodge; Scott Baillie
	Cc: [email protected]
	Subject: RE: [Adslmib] RFC3728 (1788) (RFC Errata System)

	 

	If the consensus of the Working Group is that the correction
from dBm to dB is equivalent to fixing a typo I have no problem with
approving the Errata. 

	 

	Dan

	 

		 

________________________________

		From: Bert Wijnen (IETF) [mailto:[email protected]] 
		Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 11:21 AM
		To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); Menachem Dodge; Scott Baillie
		Cc: [email protected]
		Subject: Re: [Adslmib] RFC3728 (1788) (RFC Errata
System)

		Dan and others.

		 

		Initially my reading was that a change of the SYNTAX was
proposed/suggested.

		That is clearly a NO-GO without deprecating the object
and creating a new one.

		 

		My current understanding is that the only change
suggested is to

		change the UNITS clause from 0,25dBm into 0,25 dB.

		 

		If we look at the object in RGV3728, then we see:

		   vdslPhysCurrSnrMgn OBJECT-TYPE
		       SYNTAX       Integer32 (-127..127)
		       UNITS        "0.25dBm"
		       MAX-ACCESS   read-only
		       STATUS       current
		       DESCRIPTION
		           "Noise Margin as seen by this Vtu with
respect to its
		           received signal in 0.25dB.  The effective
range is
		           -31.75 to +31.75 dB."
		       REFERENCE    "T1E1.4/2000-009R3, Part 1, common
spec"
		        ::= { vdslPhysEntry 5 }

		 

		And so, the spec does show a discrepancy between the
UNITS clause

		and the DESCRIPTION clause. So if the subject matter
experts agree

		that 0,25dB is the correct units for this object, then I
am fine to consider

		the UNITS clause to have a typo and so to correct this
as an errata.

		 

		Hope this helps,

		Bert

			----- Original Message ----- 

			From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
<mailto:[email protected]>  

			To: Menachem Dodge
<mailto:[email protected]>  ; Scott Baillie
<mailto:[email protected]>  ; Bert Wijnen (IETF)
<mailto:[email protected]>  

			Cc: [email protected] 

			Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 10:36 AM

			Subject: Re: [Adslmib] RFC3728 (1788) (RFC
Errata System)

			 

			I am afraid that such a change is not possible
in an errata without
			deprecating the object and defining a new
object. 
			
			According to RFC 2578, Section 10.2 
			
			(6)  A UNITS clause may be added.
			
			It is not clear if the UNITS clause can just be
changed as Menachem
			proposes. If both dB and dBm are valid units it
looks like a change in
			the semantics of the object. Even if this was
just a typo I doubt the
			change would be acceptable.
			
			Deprecating an object and defining a new one
requires a revision of the
			MIB module. Such change cannot be made in an
errata. 
			
			I would like to hear Bert's opinion. 
			
			Dan
			
			
			
			
			> -----Original Message-----
			> From: [email protected] 
			> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Menachem Dodge
			> Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 9:59 AM
			> To: Scott Baillie; Bert Wijnen (IETF)
			> Cc: [email protected]
			> Subject: 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: [email protected] 
			> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Scott Baillie
			> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 8:07 PM
			> To: Bert Wijnen (IETF)
			> Cc: [email protected]
			> 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: [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
			> 
			>
_______________________________________________
			> Adslmib mailing list
			> [email protected]
			> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
			>
_______________________________________________
			> Adslmib mailing list
			> [email protected]
			> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib
			> 
			_______________________________________________
			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:
270.12.49/2149 - Release Date: 06/01/09 17:55:00

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