Re: Nomenclature update
[Date: 05/31/2000 From Seto]
Brad,
I think I can live with your suggestion.
> It was also requested during the Interim meeting that we keep the order from
> the bottom of the layer diagram up. This would result in a nomenclature
> such as ...BASE-S4X. For the Serial implementation, we could use -SX, and
> for the WDM implementation, we could SMX. Although, S4X may not be a bad
> idea for adding more wavelengths in the future.
Here comes my theory again.
When we defined the names for 802.3z, we did not leave a room for parallel
optics. Why should we now? When we use a single strand of cable to transmit
data, it's all taken as default. So, I think ..BASE-S4X and ..BASE-L4X are
perfectly OK for WWDM method we are discussing. Should we ever come up with
parallel optics, we could use something like ..BASE-S4XP.
Finally, if we define 'X' as 'block encoding using (default) single lane' and
'X4' as 'block encoding using 4 lanes', we can use 10GBASE-LX, 10GBASE-SX,
10GBASE-LX4 and 10GBASE-SX4. It may be better as it can highlight the coding
scheme difference between Quad 8B10B (X4) and serial 64B66B (X).
The problem with this nomenclature is that SUPI is not necessarily a coding
scheme. It is more like PMA signaling scheme. This would put us in
questioning if we should use 'W4' as 4-lane SONET encoding scheme. But I
think 1000BASE-LW4 is very easy to understand and to remember.
Seto
>
> I could probably live with something relatively close to that. I do have an
> issue with using 4 because is it suppose to define 4 parallel fibers or 4
> wavelengths. If you use the examples you gave, it should refer to 4
> parallel fibers.
>
> It was also requested during the Interim meeting that we keep the order from
> the bottom of the layer diagram up. This would result in a nomenclature
> such as ...BASE-S4X. For the Serial implementation, we could use -SX, and
> for the WDM implementation, we could SMX. Although, S4X may not be a bad
> idea for adding more wavelengths in the future.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
> Brad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Seto, Koichiro [mailto:seto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 10:49 PM
> To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Nomenclature update
>
>
> [Date: 05/30/2000 From Seto]
>
> Hello again,
>
> Here is another theory. Let me see if this works.
>
> In 100BASE-TX, 1000BASE-SX, 1000BASE-LX and so on, we assume
> serial as
> default. We don't call 100BASE-FX as 100BASE-FX1 or
> 100BASE-TX as
> 100BASE-TX1, even though we call 100BASE-T4 as 100BASE-T4
> and 100BASE-T2
> as 100BASE-T2. As long as the transmission scheme is
> serial, we don't
> need another letter to distinguish serial as serial.
>
> According to this theory, we may be able to name 10GBASE-xxx
> as follow:
>
> 850nm Serial LAN 10GBASE-SX
> 1310nm Serial LAN 10GBASE-LX
> 1550nm Serial LAN 10GBASE-EX
> 850nm WWDM LAN 10GBASE-SX4
> 1310nm WWDM LAN 10GBASE-LX4
>
> 850nm Serial WAN 10GBASE-SW
> 1310nm Serial WAN 10GBASE-LW
> 1550nm Serial WAN 10GBASE-EW
> 850nm WWDM WAN 10GBASE-SW4
> 1310nm WWDM WAN 10GBASE-LW4
>
>
> I know there is a flaw in my new theory. According to this
> theory,
> 1000BASE-T should have been called '1000BASE-T4'. ;-)
> In any event, I think the naming of an Ethernet standard has
> been very much
> market oriented. Usually, the names come first and the
> reasons follow.
>
> Seto
>
>
>
>