RE: WAN PHY name
Mike,
You want to use an acronym for an Ethernet component? What are you
thinking!? :-)
Actually, this could be kind of fun. Besides SI-PHY, we could also have the
Ethernet-Sonet-CONection PHY. :-)
As you can tell, I'm in kind of a "Punch and Judy" mood today.
It's a good idea.
EXR PHY doesn't work since again doesn't inherently differentiate between
the 40 km LAN PHY and the 40 m WAN PHY.
ECON PHY is pretty cool. I don't know about ECONE. Hey, how about Ethernet
Going After Distance? Darn, I'm doing it again. :-)
jonathan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mdelag [mailto:mdelag@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 10:00 PM
> To: Jonathan Thatcher; HSSG_reflector (E-mail)
> Subject: 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
>
>
>