RE: Nomenclature poll...
Brad,
I vote for Option #1 as well. It is much closer to what we already know
and understand.
--Don Pannell
Brad,
I concur with Ed Cornejo, Option #1 is easier to decipher.
At 07:53 AM 6/1/00 -0400, Cornejo, Edward (Edward) wrote:
>Brad,
>
>I vote for #1. Only in the case of WDM do you need a third suffix, so it
>makes more sense to me to have at the very end of the nomenclature.
>
>Ed
>Lucent-opto
>
> > ----------
> > From: Booth, Bradley[SMTP:bradley.booth@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 4:47 PM
> > To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Nomenclature poll...
> >
> >
> > Assuming that we go with 10GBASE- instead of 10kBASE-, which suffix
> > structure does everyone prefer:
> > 1) <wavelength> <coding scheme> <# of wavelengths>, or
> > 2) <wavelength> <# of wavelengths> <coding scheme>
> >
> > An example of #1 would be: 10GBASE-SX for 850nm 64b/66b Serial, and
> > 10GBASE-LW4 for 1310nm SONET compatible WDM.
> >
> > An example of #2 would be: 10GBASE-SX for 850nm 64b/66b Serial, and
> > 10GBASE-L4W for 1310nm SONET compatible WDM.
> >
> >
> > As a note, no matter which one we choose, we are still dealing with a
> > large
> > list of port types.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Brad
> >
> >
Fred Weniger