Re: WAN PHY name
Jonathan,
How about this - instead of using letters in the name that describe
what the PHY-in-question isn't, use letters that describe what
it is: Ethernet. Starting with that the first thing that popped in my mind
was Ethernet Extension PHY (EX PHY or simply X PHY). Going a
little further I came up with Ethernet Distance Extension PHY (EDE PHY).
A few others:
Ethernet eXtended Range PHY (EXR PHY)
Ethernet CONnection PHY (ECON PHY)
Ethernet Connection to Other NEtworks (ECONE-PHY)
For those that like to keep the short-a vowel sound there's
Ethernet Connection to Alternate Networks (ECAN).
Anyway, you see my point. There's all sorts of words and acronyms that
can be formed around an E for ethernet in front of PHY. We just have
to find the right one.
Regards,
Mike de la Garrigue
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
> > >
> >
--
Mike de la Garrigue
Alcatel Internetworking Division
mdelag@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
818-878-4740