Re: [DNA-BOF] Replacement term for L3 Link?

[Greg Daley <greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au>]

Hi JinHyeock,

I can see others' points that the term L3 link is confusing.

JinHyeock Choi wrote:
> Dear Greg 
> 
> I prefer to keep using '(L3) link' in the sense defined in 'RFC 2461' as below. 
> 
>    link        - a communication facility or medium over which nodes can
>                  communicate at the link layer, i.e., the layer
>                  immediately below IP. 
> 
> As mentioned, 'link' is an entrenched term, for example, in 'link-local scope' or 
> 'on-link prefix'. 

Though it's entrenched it's not a great term.

> I am afraid it will be too much trouble to adopt a new term. Moreover with a 
> new term, we may bring another confusion. That may make matters worse. 

I don't think it's too much trouble,
I'm just worried about the time to get
something discussed and agreed to.

For something short and relatively constrained,
like the charter, we may even be able to
use L3 Link as a term (although we depreciate it).

For the development of documents, though,
there should not be any problem with defining a
new term so long as it's used consistently, and
well explained.

For example, the term 'Label' was adopted for MPLS,
and now everyone knows what that means (even though
'Tag' was previously in fairly wide usage).

> IMHO, we'd better keep using the term '(L3) link' with care. 
> 
> To prevent folks from confusion, we may explain the difference between 
> 'L3 link' and 'L2 link'  in terminology I-D as below.  
> 
> Allow me to delve into detail a little and kindly find the following example.
> 
> Assume two 802.11 b APs are one the same ethernet link and share one 
> AR like below.
> 
>                                                |                                   
>                                            __|____                        
>                                          |            |                   
>                                          |   AR    |                       
>                                          |___  __|                                                         
>                           __________|__________________ _____       
>                                     |                               |
>                                 __|__                      __ |__
>                                | AP1 |                     | AP2 |            
>                                |____ |                     |___ _|  
>                               
> In the above example, there are three L2 links, one ethernet link and two 802.11 b 
> links. But they are connected with bridges(AP) to form one link. Any two nodes 
> attached to the APs can communicated at the link layer. 
> 
> But if a node moves from AP1 to AP2, there is a L2 link change. It should change 
> its AP association and BSS ID.    
>  
> Hence when a node moves from AP1 to AP2, there is a L2 link change but not 
> a link change. 
> 
> A little tricky but I can live with it. :-) 

That example was even too complicated for me.

I think it's worth avoiding terms which require
even the chairs of group to read carefully.

The question is:

Do we change the charter now, to a newly defined
term, or do we leave the charter alone and wait
until we all agree to a term which doesn't have
prior (misleading) connotations?

Greg