RE: WAN PHY name
Having spent over 26 years in Telecom, the WAN PHY nomenclature seems to me to be the most appropriate and least confusing name that comes to mind. It isn't SONET because it isn't SONET and it isn't Telecom because other than telecom applications would find it useful. (Why start out with a market limiting handicap?) Its support of link distances over 2km gives it some claim to wide area networking coverage; its potential application within the central office, i.e., switch to switch, gives it some claim to telecommunications networking; its potential use in the LAN gives it some clain to data; so....
Len Young
> ----------
> From: Jonathan Thatcher[SMTP:Jonathan.Thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 3:05 AM
> To: HSSG_reflector (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: WAN PHY name
>
>
> 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
>