Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
I'd like to draw attention to this again. At the last OGF we had a continuously recurring discussion about what to name things (connections, links, ports, interfaces).
In the previous mail I've proposed some terminology, please let me know what you think about this.
Not surprising, I like it. First of all, it is an established model in the ITU standardization organisation, and I dislike reinventing the wheel. That said, I have to admit I did not use the G805 terminology all the time. For example, I rather use "port", "interface" or "logical interface" than "connection point" to name a prominent term. When Aaron is talking about "ports", I try to call them "ports" too, while I sometimes let "Interface" slip in (since that is the term we use in NDL). I very rarely use "connection point" in my mails. I've noticed lately two terminology confusions: me and Jeroen about "terminating devices" (I meant edge device, Jeroen meant end hosts). Furthermore, "node" is used for at least network, device and nod in a graph. Sometime we will argue over a term -- after all this is what this WG is about. However, it seems like a waste to do that for terms already established in a decent framework. In the end, the exact name is irrelevant if the concept is clear to all of us on the list. Perhaps I could start my mails with:
In this mail, interface = connection point [1] [1] http://forge.ogf.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.nml-wg/wiki/Interfaces
Now, the main question is: Would this be clear to everyone on the list (including the list lurkers), or only more confusing? Regards, Freek