IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Smadar Tauber <smadar_t@rad.com> Wed, 27 May 2009 04:37 UTC

Return-Path: <smadar_t@rad.com>
X-Original-To: adslmib@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: adslmib@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41B053A6D8A for <adslmib@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2009 21:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w+BRAtjmhwIr for <adslmib@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 May 2009 21:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from antivir2.rad.co.il (antivir2.rad.co.il [62.0.23.221]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F22503A6EBD for <adslmib@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 May 2009 21:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exrad4.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.47]) by antivir2.rad.co.il with ESMTP; 27 May 2009 07:39:16 +0300
Received: from exrad4.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.47]) by exrad4.ad.rad.co.il ([192.114.24.47]) with mapi; Wed, 27 May 2009 07:39:16 +0300
From: Smadar Tauber <smadar_t@rad.com>
To: "Ray, Robert E. (MSFC-NNM05AB50C)" <robert.e.ray@nasa.gov>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 07:39:14 +0300
Thread-Topic: RFC3728 (1788) (RFC Errata System)
Thread-Index: AcneG/0aLP+5+XJiQk+MnqLobfSVeAAZuwDQ
Message-ID: <48E7911F78327A449A9FB95637667286110DDF06@exrad4.ad.rad.co.il>
In-Reply-To: <EF4976F9DBFC9445A9F211399468F278173533139A@NDMSSCC04.ndc.nasa.gov>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 27 May 2009 09:25:40 -0700
Cc: "adslmib@ietf.org" <adslmib@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Adslmib] RFC3728 (1788) (RFC Errata System)
X-BeenThere: adslmib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: ADSLMIB <adslmib.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib>, <mailto:adslmib-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/adslmib>
List-Post: <mailto:adslmib@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:adslmib-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/adslmib>, <mailto:adslmib-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 04:43:04 -0000

 Hi Bob,

Thanks for your explanation.
I think that an errata report with this explanation can be good, considering the fact
that this RFC may not be changed in the future. It will also prevent same remark
from somebody else, in the future.

Regarding implementation report, is there a form or requirements for such report ?
I mean, what is exactly expected ? Which MIB objects do we use ?

I see that you are an expert in Avionics.
It is a very interesting field. I myself am an Avionics engineer and I worked in the past
in IAI (Israeli Aircraft Industry). I work now in a Communications company, but still
have good memories from my Avionics career. 

Thanks and Best Regards,
Smadar Tauber

-----Original Message-----
From: Ray, Robert E. (MSFC-NNM05AB50C) [mailto:robert.e.ray@nasa.gov] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 19:07
To: adslmib@ietf.org
Cc: Smadar Tauber
Subject: RFC3728 (1788) (RFC Errata System)

Hi.

Smadar Tauber <smadar_t@rad.com> wrote:

>UNITS statement (dBm) does not match units appearing in DESCRIPTION 
>text (dB).
>
>I think 'dB' are the right units for the objects above, but one can 
>check that. Anyway, it is clear that there should not be the existing 
>mismatch.
>
>Same problem for more MIB objects in the RFC.

First, I'm glad someone is implementing RFC 3278!!!  An implementation report would be welcomed by this group.

Second, dBm is dB measured at the reference power of 1 milliwatt.  Thus, dBm would be the more correct term (versus dB).  I think some of us assume a reference power of 1 milliwatt, and therefore see the terms as interchangeable in this context.  Old habits, I suppose.  I apologize for the confusion.

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


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

v2.41.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status