I had noticed the same potential ambiguity of different meanings for the same term "interface", but I did not have a good proposal to address it (other than leave it as-is). I've done a bit of browsing and scanning through RFCs, and frankly this issue has existed in the past in many occasions -- grep for /interface/i in RFC 791, RFC 2133, RFC 6418, etc. -- many of which use plain "interfaces" for both.
To disambiguate, qualifying each use (one or both) is always an option. In the charter's paragraph quoted below, the former meaning can be a "network interface", whereas the latter can be a "programmatic interface". "Network interface" seems to fit nicely as the we are defining a "routing network", the Interfaces Group MIB calls these "network interfaces", and so does NIC. Another option is to find a non-colliding synonym for one or both uses, but history seems to weight heavily in both terms (e.g., it is not a "link", it is not a ...) I think that the most direct solution is as follows: "A routing system is all or part of a routing network such as _a network_ interface, a collection of _network interfaces_, a router, or a collection of routers. _Programmatic_ Interfaces to the Routing System..." Thanks, -- Carlos. On Nov 27, 2012, at 4:38 PM, "George, Wes" <[email protected]> wrote: > Can someone clarify for me? > > We have an unfortunate overloading of the term "interface" here: > "A routing system is all or part of a routing network such as an interface, a > collection of > interfaces, a router, or a collection of routers. Interfaces to the Routing > System..." > > These are not the same sort of interfaces, and their proximity can lead to > confusion. One moves packet traffic, the other is more of an information > interface or even an API. Do we need to modify the first one to refer to it > as "an interface or collection of interfaces to transmit/receive packet data" > or some such? Or am I inferring a distinction where none is desired? > > Thanks > > Wes George > >> I have taken the charter text and milestones discussed at the BoF (minus >> the paragraph we agreed to delete) and added it into the data tracker at >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-i2rs/ >> >> This is our starting point for further charter discussions. >> > > > 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
