Brad
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014, Steven B. Carlson <
scarlson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To amplify on Marek's and John's point, the TF had a presentation from David
Law, “Past PHY Naming: Some Thoughts”. There was discussion of Mr. Law's
presentation and some discussion of past port naming.
The following motion was made:
Motion #3: Move that the name of the PHY is “1000BASE-T1”
M: Mehmet Tazebay
S; George Zimmerman
Technical, 75%
Y: 53 N: 0 A: 1
Motion passes
There was no discussion and the results speak for themselves.
Regards,
Steve
Steven B. Carlson
Chair, IEEE P802.3bp Reduced Twisted Pair Gigabit Ethernet PHY Task Force
http://www.ieee802.org/3/bp/index.html
Executive Secretary, IEEE 802.3 Working Group
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/3/index.html
President
High Speed Design, Inc.
Portland, OR
scarlson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: John D'Ambrosia [mailto:John_DAmbrosia@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 7:44 PM
To: STDS-802-3-RTPGE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_RTPGE] Port naming...
All,
I support Marek's points here. I remember similar arguments made during
802.3ba - let's face it - there is no single nomenclature that will ever
happen. We do the best we can to explain it, and then the market learns it.
And I have to say I STRONGLY support Marek's comment on the consensus behind
the name - if it is there, I believe we should support it.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Marek Hajduczenia [mailto:marek.hajduczenia@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:07 PM
To: STDS-802-3-RTPGE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_RTPGE] Port naming...
Geoff, Brad, et al.
It seems to me that every single project that generates new PHY type always
runs into the very same problem of picking the perfect name for the PHY. We
had this issue in 10G-EPON project as well, and spent a number of cycles
picking the one name that says it all. In the retrospect, despite concerns
about whether the naming was correct or not (10/1G-EPON for example), the
names stuck and now they are used in the industry. I think a name is as good
as a consensus behind it, and I believe this TF adopted it without huge
debate.
Personally, I support "100BASE-T1" for the name of the RTPGE PHY. It is
descriptive and sets it apart from any other PHY we have made so far. It
emphasizes the very specific character of this PHY and what sets it apart
from any other 1000BASE-T PHY.
Regards
Marek Hajduczenia, PhD
Network Architect, Principal Engineer
Bright House Networks
Office +1-813-295-5644
Cell +1-813-465-0669
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Thompson [mailto:thompson@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 7:43 PM
To: STDS-802-3-RTPGE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_RTPGE] Port naming...
Brad-
There is actually quite adequate precedent for the proposed naming
convention of 1000BASE-T1
(as for whether that particular name is a good idea is another
conversation)
The PHY specified in clause 23 was labeled 100BASE-T4 precisely because it
used 4 pair instead of the 2 pair used in 100BASE-TX
(by the way, the "x" in 100BASE-Tx was used because the PHY for
100BASE-Tx was externally specified, same for 100BASE-Fx) The PHY specified
in clause 32 was labeled 100BASE-T2 because it used
2 pair (of Cat 3) instead of the 4 pair of Cat 3 used in 100BASE-T4
The industry and our customers managed to not be confused by the difference
between Tx and T4.
T2 never actually made it to market.
The case for 10BASE-T and 10BASE-Te is quite different as they are fully
interchangeable on a 100 meter Cat 5 link segment.
Frankly, I am more worried about the potential label confusion between
1000BASE-T1 and legacy carrier TDM T1.
I think 1000BASE-Tv is a bad idea because of potential confusion with
network links (e.g. HDMI-BASE-T) used for television.
Best regards,
Geoff Thompson
On Jan 28, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Brad Booth wrote:
> 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.
>