Subject: [nemo] Issue A14 - e-face and i-face

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:16:07 -0800

Can we have some comments from non-English speakers that think i-face  
and e-face are easier to understand than ingress interface and egress  
interface? This still seems awkward to me -- I wouldn't know what e- 
face and i-face mean unless I go do some research.

TJ

http://www.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~ernst/nemo/node17.html

Issue A15: [VALIDATE B4 CLOSING 0502] I-face and E-face

[Comment #1] by Vijay 040721 and 040722:
Ojection to terms E-face and I-face. RFC3753 does not include E-face  
and I-face. Ingress and Egress are widely used terms, and everybody  
understands them.

[Comment #2] Thierry:

I don't consider this as an issue. This is not a new definition, not  
a redefinition, just an abbreviation. Note that the terms egress  
interface and ingress interface are defined in RFC3753

Conclusion: I think it helps people to keep the abbreviation,  
particularly non native English speakers for who "ingress" and  
"egress" sounds similar

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 06:27:24 +0900

TJ

I am one of non English speakers:-)
i prefer ingress and egress interface rather than E-face/I-face.

We should define only terms which we really need.
Defining a lot of new terms is sometime confusing.

ryuji

On 2005/11/10, at 6:16, T.J. Kniveton wrote:

> Can we have some comments from non-English speakers that think i- 
> face and e-face are easier to understand than ingress interface and  
> egress interface? This still seems awkward to me -- I wouldn't know  
> what e-face and i-face mean unless I go do some research.
>
> TJ
>
> Ojection to terms E-face and I-face. RFC3753 does not include E- 
> face and I-face. Ingress and Egress are widely used terms, and  
> everybody understands them.
>
>
> [Comment #2] Thierry:
>
>
>
> I don't consider this as an issue. This is not a new definition,  
> not a redefinition, just an abbreviation. Note that the terms  
> egress interface and ingress interface are defined in RFC3753
>
>

---

From: Nicolas Montavont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 22:29:02 +0100

Hi,

If said by an english speaker, I have no pb to make the difference  
between ingress and egress.
If I have to speak, or if a non-english speaker talks about ingress  
and egress, I can get confused. i and e are much easier to understand.

Having said that, is there a pb to keep using only ingress and egress  
in documents, and be able
to use abbreviations when speaking?

Nicolas

---

From: ivancic <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 16:29:32 -0500

I get confused with ingress and egress and I am an English speaker!    
If the terminology is more  helpful than harmful, I vote to keep it.

Will

T.J. Kniveton wrote:

> interface? This still seems awkward to me -- I wouldn't know what
> e-face and i-face mean unless I go do some research.
>
> TJ
>
> <http://www.sfc.wide.ad.jp/%7Eernst/nemo/node17.html>
>
> *Issue A15: [V* *ALIDATE * *B4 * *CLOSING 0502* *] I-face and E-face*
>
> [Comment #1] /by Vijay 040721 and 040722/ :
> [Comment #2] /Thierry/ :
> I don't consider this as an issue. This is not a new definition, not a
> redefinition, just an abbreviation. Note that the terms egress
> Conclusion: /I think it helps people to keep the abbreviation,
> "egress" sounds similar/

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 23:07:52 +0100

In your previous mail you wrote:

=> I agree with you and more, as in French the letter i is pronounce
exactly like the letter e in English this can become a nightmare in
its not written form! So I support TJ, PLEASE use ingress and egress
at least!

Regards

[email-masked]

---

From: Masafumi Watari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 07:30:49 +0900

I also agree.

regards,
watari

---

From: Christophe Janneteau <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:41:42 +0100

I agree with Francis.

--another french guy

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 16:53:44 -0800

> its not written form! So I support TJ, PLEASE use ingress and egress

Non-native English speaker here.

I second that "e" vs "i" is difficult to distinguish, as a non-native
French speaker too.

BEsides, sounds to me like in English "e-face" is somebody with a face
of e-shape.  I'll acknowledge though that e-everything seems to be
widely used.

Alex

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 11:31:42 +0900

I'm French and while I agree that in French or other languages we might
be confused and pronounce 'e-face' when actually meaning 'i-face', I'm
much more confused when pronouning or earing "ingress" vs "egress" which
seems to be a problem even for English speakers. 

So, the voice count so far is:
- no harm to keep i-face and e-face in the document as it can help:
  Will, Thierry.
- remove
  Ryuji, Nicolas, Francis, Masafumi, Christophe, Alexandru

There is a majority to remove, but I think it doesn't harm to keep since
it also helps. I don't understand the reason to remove because it's an
abbreaviation [i.,e. not a term per se], and the offical term remains
'egrees interface' and'ingress interface'. But this is just my point of
view and I will range behind the majority.

Thierry

 On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 16:53:44 -0800
Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]> wrote:

> >    Can we have some comments from non-English speakers that think
> >    i-face  and e-face are easier to understand than ingress
> >    interface and egress  interface? This still seems awkward to me
> >    -- I wouldn't know what e- face and i-face mean unless I go do
> >    some research.
> >    

-- 
Thierry ERNST, PhD
WIDE, Jun Murai Lab., Keio University, Japan
Nautilus6 Chair: http://www.nautilus6.org
Web: http://www.sfc.wide.ad.jp/~ernst/
T:+81-44-580-1600 F:+81-44-580-1437
--

---

From: Romain KUNTZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 11:57:13 +0900

Hello,

French speaking.
I also prefer ingress/egress rather than e/i for both oral and written. 
First because of the e/i confusion in French. And although e/i-face may 
just be an abreviation, I do not see the benefit to use it over 
ingress/egress in the text. I would prefer to stick to the defined terms 
  to avoid confusions.

Romain

-- 
Romain KUNTZ
[email-masked]

---

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 21:14:29 -0800

> seems to be a problem even for English speakers.

When at the microphone, I hear speaker of other romantic languages  
(principally Spanish, French and Italian) pronouncing an American "E"  
when they mean their own "I". I don't see how this clears up the  
situation.
>   Ryuji, Nicolas, Francis, Masafumi, Christophe, Alexandru

You can add my name and Romain's to the remove list. That's 8 to 2.
> it also helps. I don't understand the reason to remove because it's an

Four times as many people say it doesn't help. How do you reach this  
conclusion?

> view and I will range behind the majority.

Fair enough; remove it from the document and you can keep it as an  
abbreviation in your documents.

Seriously, if there is a real problem of understanding what "egress"  
and "ingress" are that can't be cleared up by a trip to the English  
dictionary, then we should consider finding some new terms that are  
understandable and reasonable. But at this point, it would be  
impossible to go back and change all the documents that have already  
been written, so we're going to have to deal with ingress and egress  
for the time being. The abbreviations obfuscate things further, in my  
view, and at best are only abbreviating confusing terms... so let's  
just get rid of them for now, and figure out what to do for future  
versions of the doc. I think we've all spent enough time on this issue.

TJ