Re: WAN PHY name
OK then, SONET/SDH PHY seems more appropriate than SONET PHY.
As I explained previously, this PHY is an IEEE 802.3 PHY which is clearly
distinguished, as it should be, from real SONET/SDH. The "Lite" suffix is
content-free and should be dropped.
Best Regards,
Rich
--
Roy Bynum wrote:
>
> Rich,
>
> There is only one problem, it is not a SONET PHY. It is a 'SONET Lite' as
> well as a 'SDH Lite' PHY.
>
> Thank you,
> Roy Bynum
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rich Taborek <rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2000 12:05 AM
> Subject: Re: WAN PHY name
>
> >
> > Jonathan,
> >
> > Seto just gave me an idea. How about simply: SONET PHY? Since this would
> be an
> > IEEE 802.3 PHY it's already distinguishable from true SONET.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Rich
> >
> > --
> >
> > "Seto, Koichiro" wrote:
> > >
> > > [Date: 04/01/2000 From Seto]
> > >
> > > Jonathan,
> > >
> > > How about 'SONET Framing PHY'?
> > > It seems to me what so-called 'WAN PHY' folks are wanting is SONET
> framing.
> > >
> > > SONET friendly PHY sounds OK, but there is another 'SONET friendly PHY'
> proposal
> > > that does not use SONET framing, i.e. XGENIE proposal from Osamu Ishida
> of NTT.
> > > If we use XGENIE, we can achieve most of the things that SONET signaling
> is
> > > serving for. It seems to me this, too, is a SONET friendly proposal.
> > >
> > > Seto
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I have been thinking about this a great deal and have yet to find what
> is
> > > > really loveable.
> > > >
> > > > I recommend that we don't want the "word" WAN anywhere in the
> definition. To
> > > > include it implies that we believe that WAN and SONET are in some way
> > > > equivalent. While some people may in their hearts believe this, a
> number
> > > > would be quite adverse....
> > > >
> > > > If we remove "WAN" as an option, we are pretty much left with "SONET"
> as a
> > > > key qualifier (or "Telecom"). What I remember seeing so far:
> > > >
> > > > SONET Friendly PHY
> > > > SONET Compatible PHY
> > > > PHY with SONET framer
> > > > SONET-compliant PHY
> > > > Telecom PHY
> > > >
> > > > A number of people voiced dislike for use of the words "compatible"
> and
> > > > "compliant." I remember the arguments being something like: how can it
> be
> > > > compatible and not compliant and how can it be compliant and not
> SONET.
> > > > Sigh.
> > > >
> > > > This leaves:
> > > >
> > > > SONET Friendly PHY
> > > > PHY with SONET framer
> > > > Telecom PHY
> > > >
> > > > Any more ideas?
> > > >
> > > > jonathan
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard Taborek Sr. Phone: 408-845-6102
Chief Technology Officer Cell: 408-832-3957
nSerial Corporation Fax: 408-845-6114
2500-5 Augustine Dr. mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx
Santa Clara, CA 95054 http://www.nSerial.com