"port" is already used in the circuit monitoring stuff so it's easy for me to prefer it. Roman W dniu 2011-09-28 20:49, Jeff W. Boote pisze:
I prefer Port simply because we already moved this from Interface to Port 6 years ago. I don't see any reason to keep redefining the term. Seems like a really bad use of time.
jeff
On Sep 28, 2011, at 10:08 AM, Chin Guok wrote:
Hi all,
I'm fine with either "Port" or "Interface".
- Chin
On 9/27/11 6:32 AM, Freek Dijkstra wrote:
All,
A few years ago the NML group agreed to describe an object equal to the G.800 "Forwarding Point", but name it "Port", after prior usage in the NM-WG.
Recently, it was proposed to rename this object to "Interface", after some confusion over the term "Port" in two projects.
To end this discussion, I ask everyone reading this mail to vote what they think is the best term. The options are:
* Port * Interface * ForwardingPoint * LogicalPort * LogicalInterface * No discussion, but further discussion on this term
This is a ranked ballot, so if you don't care about the name, but like this discussion to end, you can rank the first five options with high priority (rank 1), and the last option (further discussion) as rank 6.
Please vote at: http://www.cs.cornell.edu/w8/~andru/cgi-perl/civs/vote.pl?id=E_74473334af268499&akey=8c6d8b4da822da62
The voting system has some easy-to-circumvent methods in place to prevent people voting multiple times. If you have problems voting, let me know.
Thanks, Freek _______________________________________________ nml-wg mailing list nml-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg
nml-wg mailing list nml-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg
nml-wg mailing list nml-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg