RE: Terminology [Re: Some Comments on ID/Loc Separation Proposals]

["marcelo bagnulo" <mbagnulo@ing.uc3m.es>]

> What's wrong with the "end system", which is the most authentic
> terminology directly related to the end to end principle?

i guess there is nothing wrong with it, as long as we define it precisely.

could you provide a definition of what do you mean by end system? would it
be similar to JNC's endpoint definiton? or NSRG stack definition?

I mean, are those three different names for the same concept or do we have a
conceptual discrepancy here?
As far as i can understand it, we only have one class of objects and we are
just discussing about the name to name it. That's why i am fine with any
name we choose as long as we define it properly

A more important issue would be that we are considering three different
objects and that we are arguing which one is the fundamental entity that we
should consider in multi6 discussions, but IMHO this is not the case.

Regards, marcelo
>
> 						Masataka Ohta
>