Re: [DNA] Terminology choices from DNAv4: [Fwd: [dhcwg] ProposedResolution to DNA Issue 20: Most Likely Point of Attachment]

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

Hi JinHyeock,

Trying to gety back in touch with recent e-mail
now I'm not travelling...

----- Original Message -----
From: JinHyeock Choi <jinchoe@samsung.com>
Date: Friday, July 30, 2004 1:33 am
Subject: Re: [DNA] Terminology choices from DNAv4: [Fwd: [dhcwg] Proposed Resolution to DNA Issue 20: Most Likely Point of	Attachment]

> Dear Greg
> 
> It seems that we are facing Jason again. Kindly find my 
> in line comments. 
> 
> > Here's an indication of what's being used in DNAv4 for
> > terminology.
> > 
> > It may provide a way to disambiguate the use of 'link'
> > as in link-local from the term 'link' as in link-layer,
> > which we've gotten into.
> > 
> > If we describe the L3 entity as an attachment point (
> > or point of attachment) and the individual L2 or wireless
> > component as a "wireless LAN segment" or cell, we may be
> > able to
> 
> 
> It seems that you suggest to change terminology. 
> It's my impression that you propose to use 
> 'attachment point' for 'link' and 
> 'wireless LAN segment or cell' for 'attachment point'. 
> Am I right?   

I think so, 
but I think what is also important is that 
we don't define a conflicting term for 
attachment point with DNAv4.


> > Of course we'd need to work out whether it is applicable
> > to each of our documents, and see if people would like
> > to use such terms (and understand them).
> 
> 
> Thanks for your effor to keep Jason rest in peace. 

We'll see if it works...

Greg


> Best Regards
> 
> JinHyeock  
>