Re: Nomenclature update
Brad,
Two point:
1) I'd give more weight to the "Marketing" angle of the nomenclature than to any
reason based on technical purity with respect to layering, prior documentation,
etc.
For example, 10GBASE-XX has a significantly better sound, look and "feel" than
"10kBASE-XX.
2) If you're going to attempt to cover LAN/WAN, block/scrambled coding,
Longwave/Shortwave, Single/Parallel fiber, Serial/WDM, you might as well throw
in Fiber/Copper, Coax/Twisted-Pair, 780/850/980/1180/1300/1310/1550 nm etc.
Point is: Keep it simple. You're model is good enough at this point. Once we
settle on the PMDs which will go into the document we can finalize the XX or
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX designation according to guideline #1 above.
Best Regards,
Rich
--
"Booth, Bradley" wrote:
>
> 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
-------------------------------------------------------
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