Link / attachment point / ?? (was RE: [DNA] Killing Jason: IssuesNeeds to be Settled)

[Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@samsung.com>]

Hi JinHyeock,

> 1. The term 'link' & 'attachment point'
> 
> I still see the confusion around the terms 'link' & 'attachment
point'.
> We have been talking about this issue since Feb. I wish that we
clarify
> the terms 'link' & 'attachment definition' so that there will be no
more
> unnecessary ambiguities and arguments.
> 
> My suggestions are
> 1) Fix the terms for 'link (L3 link)' and 'attachment point (L2
link)'.
>    - If necessary, we may adopt new terms.
> 2) Announce the terms clearly and explicitly so that there will be
>     no more confusion.
>    - We may explicitly mention this at DNA terminology draft.
>      (Carving in a stone tablet also will be nice. :-) )

Sorry, but "attachment *point*" does not imply any type of "*link*" to
me. I find it confusing. (think point-to-point links :-) I'd say on a
802.11b network, at the link-layer the attachment point of a MT is the
access point. Or, on a cdma2000 network, at the network-layer the
attachment point of the MS is the PDSN.

Can we stick to the definition of link as provided in RFC 2461, and
refer to the other as "link segment"? We can still use the term
"attachment point" but not to mean the medium that is connecting hosts
together.

Alper