Re: Purpose of terminology I-D

[Scott Michel <scottm@rush.aero.org>]

>   The terminology of satellite communications are shown in the Radio 
>   Regulations agreed upon at meeting of the WARC, ITU.
>   In this document, the transmission path from earth station to 
>   satellite(space station) is refered to as "up-link". Another 
>   direction, from satellite to ground station is refered to as 
>   "down-link".
> 
>   So, I think "Feed" and "Receiver" are better than "up-link"
>   and "down-link" for this purpose.

I'm starting to agree with Steve Deering, we need better terms.

"Feed" is a perfectly acceptable term because it's not used in many
places and is relatively context-free. So when I write "feed", you
know what I mean. (And if you want perfectly correct English, it should
be "Feeder".)

"Receiver" is really bad. We use the word "receiver" in many contexts.
I'd like something that is less ambiguous.

Also, in the terminology, I agree with Steve, that we should not
be dredging standards documents to make our terminology exactly the
same as that used by the ITU when referring to satellites.

If we really wanted to be generic, we could just call uplinks/feed
nodes "Sources", and downlinks/Receivers "Sinks". Again, those two
terms are heavily overloaded.

I suspect there are more examples of UDLNs beyond satellites.


-scottm