Re: WAN PHY name
Rich,
The term "Lite" is not content free. It makes a major distinction to the
other standards organizations in that it distinguishes the 802.3 PHY from
the standard SONET and SDH PHYs as defined by those other standards
organizations.
Thank you,
Roy Bynum
----- Original Message -----
From: Rich Taborek <rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2000 11:27 PM
Subject: 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