[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[DNA] Is 'Link' definition Jason?

To: Pekka Nikander <pekka.nikander@nomadiclab.com>, Dna <dna@eng.monash.edu.au>
Subject: [DNA] Is 'Link' definition Jason?
From: JinHyeock Choi <athene@sait.samsung.co.kr>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 22:19:21 +0900
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, Greg Daley <greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au>
References: <E19D6076-C8D1-11D8-82A9-000393CE1E8C@nomadiclab.com>
Sender: owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au

Dear Greg, Pekka and Carl

After 'L2 link & L3 link' thread at Feb, it was my understanding that 
we would use 'link' for L3 link and 'attachment point' for L2 link. 
I assumed that the link definition issue is settled once and for all.

Wrong. The issue comes back again and again. It's as if Friday the 13th. 
You think it is over, then it starts again!

We need to do something to fix this problem lest there should be more 
unnecessary confusions. Carl may clarify this in the terminology draft
or we may give short presentation on it at the meeting. Kindly see to
that Jason rests in peace. 

Best Regards

JinHyeock

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [DNA] Is 'Link' definition Jason?
  - From: Greg Daley <greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au>

Prev by Date: Re: [DNA] DNA Goals response
Next by Date: [DNA] San Diego Meeting
Prev by thread: [DNA] DNA Goals Issues
Next by thread: Re: [DNA] Is 'Link' definition Jason?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread