I was just considering the use of the term 1000BASE-T1 and thought I'd share some observations.
There is no case of using a 1 at the end of the port name as the number at the end only implied the number of lanes, number of wavelengths or reach. The number 1 was never used as it generally referred to a serial implementation (single lane or wavelength). Unfortunately, with 1G on TP cabling, aka 1000BASE-T, the port nomenclature applies to all four pair.
Could this create confusion in the industry? Would 1000BASE-T1 be capable of the same reach as existing 1000BASE-T? 1000BASE-T2 would probably be easier to explain because 100BASE-T2 (which follows the above rules for the number) already exists.
What about doing what EEE did to 10BASE-T? It created a new nomenclature for a new electrical interface specification and called it 10BASE-Te (e for being more energy efficient due to lower voltage requirements).
Would it be worth considering creating a nomenclature that portrays accurately that this port type is different than 1000BASE-T? What about 1000BASE-Ta (a for automotive) or 1000BASE-Tv (v for vehicular)?
Just my 2 cents,
Brad