I agree too, however we need to define clearly and if there are different meanings with other RFC, then should be mentioned.
AB On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Marcelo Reis <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree, using the term 'link' won't help. > > Defining the new RSI acronym does seem the best option. > > I wouldn't entertain an OSI layer analogy though. That by itself would > open a whole lot of discussion. For instance, a router interface doesn't > need to be limited to layers 1-3. > > Marcelo > > On 2012-11-28, at 11:00 AM, "George, Wes" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > >> Marcelo Reis > >> > >> What about using the term 'link' when referring to traditional > >> virtual/physical interfaces. And leave the term 'interface' to indicate > >> a routing system interface? > >> > > [WEG] I think that is going to end up being an artificial distinction > that won't translate beyond those involved in the discussion, and to me, in > that context "link" refers to a connection between two interfaces, not just > one interface. > > > > We could say "physical interface" and clarify that this includes virtual > interfaces that are emulating a physical interface. I think that gets > properly specific. (and then the I2RS interface would be "control > interface") > > > > I also like the idea of a crisper definition of the routing system > interface as a way to disambiguate it from the more generic form that could > mean lots of different things dependent on context. Maybe combined with > making it clear in the definition of a routing system that in that case > we're referring to interfaces carrying user data between devices (whether > physical or virtual) it'd make the distinction more evident. > > > > The only other way I can think of to clarify might be to actually tie it > to the OSI layers involved. > > A router interface is going to be Layers 1-3 > > An IRS interface is going to be Layer 7 really, even if it's > manipulating things to affect the path of Layer 3 data. > > But that had the potential to be pretty clunky too. Is it possible to > mainly refer to the Routing System Interface as an API, or is that too > limiting? That at least uses a well-known disambiguation. > > > > Wes George > > > > This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable > proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to > copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely > for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you > are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that > any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to > the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and > may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify > the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of > this E-mail and any printout. > > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs >
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
