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
Hi all, There is a little more background here that I don't think that it's been touched on. I apologize if so. The NM-WG initially used the term interface in the topology schema. When the OSCARS/perfSONAR group was trying to harmonize with the GN2-JRA3 effort, for what would be the Interdomain Controller Protocol, this was one of the points discussed. The JRA3 group had used port in its design documents. I remember Mauro Campanella defending the choice and making many of the same points that Jason did. So, as is part of consensus building, we adapted and took this back to the NMWG. I personally preferred interface when starting out, but was won over by port. First, we "lost" the debate. Next, it's shorter to type and there is a time-honored tradition of lazy typists. :-) Lastly, I agree with the arguments for using port and I find it slightly more accurate when I compare the relevant dictionary entries. That said, it's not a big enough deal for me to post the dictionary entries and try to argue through them. What I will say is that if we don't agree and then stick to the agreement, there will always be a group who will prefer a different term for the same concept. As far as GENI goes, I don't think that the resource specification discussion is far enough along to say that the are settled firmly on interface. best, martin On Sep 27, 2011, at 9:32 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
Hello, My final 2 cents on the debate: The issue was raised in two separate projects which are looking to adopt NML for infrastructure description. These projects aim to have users as active writers of topology descriptions, not just passive consumers of measured data. The confusion is that these users are more accustomed to the use of "port" in the context of a UDP or TCP port, not as a network attachment point. The concept of a UDP or TCP port would actually probably translate to a Label and not a Port/Interface if we would use it in a network description. Looking at GENI, and especially ProtoGENI as the leading candidate, they seem to go for Interface as well. That being said, the world will not end if we choose Port. Those projects will probably use Interface anyway, but just semantically match it to nml:Port if necessary. Jeroen.
Hi Jeroen/All; Comments inline: On 9/27/11 5:03 PM, thus spake Jeroen van der Ham:
Hello,
My final 2 cents on the debate:
The issue was raised in two separate projects which are looking to adopt NML for infrastructure description. These projects aim to have users as active writers of topology descriptions, not just passive consumers of measured data. The confusion is that these users are more accustomed to the use of "port" in the context of a UDP or TCP port, not as a network attachment point.
As I have noted in prior exchanges in email and in person OGF - I don't see this as a compelling reason for us to run out and change our established terminology. What happens when another group approaches you at an event in another 2 years to call the concept 'port', will we have yet another discussion on this mailing list to change (again)? I find this entire line of conversation rather unnecessary and counterproductive to this working group. Its a *name*, and if several projects that initially called the concept an 'interface' can get used to 'port' re: Martin's earlier history laden email, I don't see why these new groups cannot do the same. It is ok to tell people 'no' occasionally, especially when there is a destructive nature to the overall choice that will force work on many established partners.
The concept of a UDP or TCP port would actually probably translate to a Label and not a Port/Interface if we would use it in a network description.
Looking at GENI, and especially ProtoGENI as the leading candidate, they seem to go for Interface as well.
This is false. ProtoGENI (something that Martin, the UDel/IU students, as we as Internet2 are heavily involved with) based their early work on NM/NML schematic concepts, mostly from old examples that featured port. It is true its not a one to one mapping, but they are using links and ports just like we are. Other GENI efforts (orca/ben, planetlab) may use interface, I dont know those as well, but these do not represent *all* of GENI. Thanks; -jason
That being said, the world will not end if we choose Port. Those projects will probably use Interface anyway, but just semantically match it to nml:Port if necessary.
Jeroen.
I wrote:
The options are:
* Port * Interface * ForwardingPoint * LogicalPort * LogicalInterface * No discussion, but further discussion on this term
The last one should have read "No decision, but further discussion about this term". (not that I expect anyone prefers that option...) Also, I forgot to point out that I consider the voting to be public, just like all other OGF technical discussions. (If you don't want your opinion to be public, do not vote, even though the website does not register your e-mail address.) Freek
Hi Freek; On 9/27/11 3:32 PM, thus spake Freek Dijkstra:
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
It is unclear to me where options 3, 4, and 5 appeared from. The last conversation on this issue (proposed by Jeroen on the mailing list, and presented at the last face to face meeting) was simply a change from 'port' to 'interface'. While I am fully in favor of ending the discussion, I fail to see how including *more* concepts is necessary. That being said, I will vote in this poll and state for the mailing list my opinion: - PORT, and there should not be anymore more discussion on this issue, or proposals to change established terminology. -jason
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
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
"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
Freek Dijkstra wrote:
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 results are in and have not changed since last week. http://www.cs.cornell.edu/w8/~andru/cgi-perl/civs/results.pl?id=E_74473334af... Thank you to all who took the time to cast their vote. There is a tie between Port and Interface, with all other options deemed less acceptable by a majority. Since no-one preferred the "further discussion", I think we should move on to more useful discussions. No majority could be found to change the current terminology, so I see no reason to go through that trouble. We keep the term "Port", and I gladly close this discussion. For what it is worth: I had a slight personal preference for "Interface", but if you read IEEE and ITU documentation, you will see that "Port" or "Point" are more common names (eg. Bridge Port in Ethernet, or Forwarding Point and Forwarding Port in G.800). Regards, Freek
participants (7)
-
Chin Guok -
Freek Dijkstra -
Jason Zurawski -
Jeff W. Boote -
Jeroen van der Ham -
Martin Swany -
Roman Łapacz