[Nml-wg] Naming things, was Re: Tube Terminology

[Freek Dijkstra]

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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nml-wg/attachments/20080404/ac45f857/attachment.bin