[Nml-wg] NML terminology: Port vs Interface

[Jeff W. Boote]

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 at ogf.org
>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg
> _______________________________________________
> nml-wg mailing list
> nml-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nml-wg