Re: [nemo] Re: Sub-optimal Terminology

Thierry Ernst <ernst@sfc.wide.ad.jp> Mon, 21 November 2005 03:05 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ee1ze-0003bo-FI; Sun, 20 Nov 2005 22:05:22 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ee1zc-0003be-KH for nemo@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Nov 2005 22:05:20 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA28567 for <nemo@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Nov 2005 22:04:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp ([203.178.142.146]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ee2Hx-00049E-Tw for nemo@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Nov 2005 22:24:20 -0500
Received: from iseran.local (unknown [IPv6:2001:200:0:8410:20a:95ff:fed0:2c78]) by mail.sfc.wide.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6609E4CC73 for <nemo@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:05:09 +0900 (JST)
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:04:58 +0900
From: Thierry Ernst <ernst@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
To: nemo@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [nemo] Re: Sub-optimal Terminology
Message-Id: <20051121120458.450b11d2.ernst@sfc.wide.ad.jp>
In-Reply-To: <437E22AB.6090908@levkowetz.com>
References: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FC0178AB21@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com> <20051117185134.544451e2.ernst@sfc.wide.ad.jp> <437C7CF4.3070601@levkowetz.com> <437E1E9D.4050809@motorola.com> <437E22AB.6090908@levkowetz.com>
Organization: Keio University
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; powerpc-apple-darwin7.8.0)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: nemo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: NEMO Working Group <nemo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nemo>, <mailto:nemo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:nemo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nemo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nemo>, <mailto:nemo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: nemo-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: nemo-bounces@ietf.org

> > Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> > > Multi-angular already exists as a word, used in the sense "Viewed 
> > > from multiple angles (directions)".
> > Oh, I didn't know that.

That's not an IETF definition, so I don't see the point to stick to it.
Otherwise, how would you define triangular ? "Viewed from tri angles
(directions)" ? My point was that since "triangular" is used to describe
the MIP6 problem, it makes "multiangular" a good term to describe the
NEMO term. 

The other proposed term are "exotic" from the perspective of consistency
with older terms used in the mobility literature.

> on 2005-11-18 19:34 Alexandru Petrescu said the following:
> [...]
> > Google finds many hits for "pinball routing" in NEMO texts, so it
> > could be considered an established term as well.
> 
> Ah, Ok.

Definition ?

> 
> >> As alternatives for your consideration, what about: * Nested
> >> triangular * Nested dog-leg * Compound triangular * Compound
> >dog-leg
> > 
> > "dog-leg" can have only three segments (bones).

Yes, and besides this is really not a nice term, IMHO.

> Yes.  But in nested dog-legs you may have one bone contain a dog-leg?
> 
> (I don't like this a lot myself, though...)
> 
> > zigzag.
> 
> That's pretty good.  I like that.

With what definition ? I prefer pinball because there is a long history
of using it. 

Thierry.