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

[Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>]

> Can we stick to the definition of link as provided in RFC 2461,

Yes, but that definition might be less crisp than needed.

For instance, it can be read as "IP over Ethernet" means that Ethernet
is a link.
This doesn't explicitly say that the Ethernet in my office and
in this hotel are different links.

I think the RFC 2460 definition does intend that they be different,
but it would make sense for the DNA work to make this more explicit.

> 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.

"link segment" might fool the reader that it is know a-priori which
link this is a segment off, which isn't the case in DNA; 
first a host attaches to something then it tries to determine whether
it is the same link as to which it was attached earlier.

I don't have a better suggestion than "attachment point".

  Erik