I was trying to divert from yet another acronym. But I agree, it does seem the best option.
Marcelo On 2012-11-28, at 9:21 AM, Russ White <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> How about we push "interface" into an acronym in one case, so we don't >>> end up repeating the word itself constantly? Maybe: >>> >>> - "interface," used in the traditional sense, as a physical or virtual >>> interface that connects a link to a packet processing engine of some type. >>> >>> - "RSI," the routing system interface, defined as the bidirectional >>> interface into the set of software and hardware elements that control >>> the forwarding of packets through a routed (IP) network. >>> >>> If we all used "RSI" consistently, then we could just leave "interface" >>> where it is, minimizing confusion for readers in the future. > >> What about using the term 'link' when referring to traditional >> virtual/physical interfaces. And leave the term 'interface' to indicate a >> routing system interface? > > I would agree --but I think using the term "link" throughout will be > difficult, and will confuse folks reading a few years from now --besides > which, "link," itself is rather overloaded. > > OTOH, I'd rather not get into a full blown effort to define every > possible meaning of the word "interface." I'd rather just peel off the > one definition we want to be definite about, provide the right acronym > or phrase for that one meaning, and leave the rest alone as out of scope > and charter. > > :-) > > Russ > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
