Renaming the WAN PHY

["Jones, Nevin R (Nevin)" <nrjones@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Dave:

My email un-necessarily suggested that Lucent Technologies was of a
different mind than Nortel regarding the WAN PHY. This is not so. We
continue to believe in the technical soundness of our common approach to the
specification of this interface.

My intention was simply to make the point that we believe in the need for an
underlying SONET compatibility function to couple the WAN PHY to the SONET
network.

Also, I wanted to point out that in our view, the cost of relaxing the usual
SONET clock tolerance (from+/- 4.6 ppm to +/-100ppm may not represent any
significant cost savings as percent of the total NE cost. So perhaps such a
relaxation might not be that necessary.


I did not phrase my response well but thankfully you did in your response to

Gary. 

We are aligned in terms of describing this interface as being SONET
compatible.
 
Best Regards,

-Nevin Jones