Re: Terminology/intro draft

[tim@rsd.dl.nec.com (Tim Woodall)]

> > > So far, I've gotten a couple of suggestions about the concept "feed".
> > > But why drag bidirectionality into this? Why do we need virtual interfaces?
> > 
> > Ok.
> > 
> > I will post the detail of our idea of virtual interface 
> > as a Internet-Draft within a week.
> 
> If you'd said that you have a I-D to post, I'd have been a little more
> receptive to your terminology.
> 
> Can you tell me what's missing from the WG's terminology I-D, other than
> redefining the entire terminology?
> 
> 
> -scottm
> 

Didn't the Aerospace proposal "VIPRE -- Virtual Internet Packet Relay"
also utilize similar terminology. It seems that the use of virtual
interfaces to create functionally bidirectional interfaces out of
unidirectional links are key concepts that should be supported by the
"standard terminology".


On another note, the VIPRE proposal suggested a protocol based on 
RDP to allow a downlink to dynamically discover the interfaces
available at the uplink. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to attend 
the working group sessions. The notes from the last meeting indicated 
some discussion as to whether a "new" protocol was required/desirable. 
Has there been any further discussion/consensus on this issue?


Regards,
Tim S. Woodall
NEC America
Satellite Networks Department
tim@rsd.dl.nec.com