RE: WAN PHY name
All:
The names LAN-PHY and WAN-PHY are clearly understood in committee. They
have a long history of discussion and presentations. They are simple,
broadly understood, and somewhat descriptive.
The alternatives terms make things worse. Lets just keep what we have.
Cheers,
Paul
At 10:30 AM 4/3/00 -0700, Jonathan Thatcher wrote:
>
>Len,
>
>If I might take your message and make three minor modifications:
>
>Having spent over *XX* years in *Datacom*, the *LAN* 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 either 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 claim
>to data; so....
>
>Do you see the problem? There are many other minor variations that all
>yield equally valid statements. Since there is some desire by the committee
>to have common PMDs for the 10.0 and 9.5 Gb/s versions of the PHY, using
>distance doesn't differentiate any better than LAN and WAN.
>
>Let's not give up on this. If it were trivial, we would have solved it long
>ago....
>
>jt
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Young, Leonard G [mailto:YoungLG@xxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 6:10 AM
>> To: HSSG_reflector (E-mail); 'Jonathan Thatcher'
>> Subject: 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
>> >
>>
>
Paul A. Bottorff, Director Switching Architecture
Enterprise Solutions Technology Center
Nortel Networks, Inc.
4401 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, CA 95052-8185
Tel: 408 495 3365 Fax: 408 495 1299 ESN: 265 3365
email: pbottorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx