Re: WAN PHY name
Jonathan,
Seto just gave me an idea. How about simply: SONET PHY? Since this would be an
IEEE 802.3 PHY it's already distinguishable from true SONET.
Best Regards,
Rich
--
"Seto, Koichiro" wrote:
>
> [Date: 04/01/2000 From Seto]
>
> Jonathan,
>
> How about 'SONET Framing PHY'?
> It seems to me what so-called 'WAN PHY' folks are wanting is SONET framing.
>
> SONET friendly PHY sounds OK, but there is another 'SONET friendly PHY' proposal
> that does not use SONET framing, i.e. XGENIE proposal from Osamu Ishida of NTT.
> If we use XGENIE, we can achieve most of the things that SONET signaling is
> serving for. It seems to me this, too, is a SONET friendly proposal.
>
> Seto
>
> >
> > I have been thinking about this a great deal and have yet to find what is
> > really loveable.
> >
> > I recommend that we don't want the "word" WAN anywhere in the definition. To
> > include it implies that we believe that WAN and SONET are in some way
> > equivalent. While some people may in their hearts believe this, a number
> > would be quite adverse....
> >
> > If we remove "WAN" as an option, we are pretty much left with "SONET" as a
> > key qualifier (or "Telecom"). What I remember seeing so far:
> >
> > SONET Friendly PHY
> > SONET Compatible PHY
> > PHY with SONET framer
> > SONET-compliant PHY
> > Telecom PHY
> >
> > A number of people voiced dislike for use of the words "compatible" and
> > "compliant." I remember the arguments being something like: how can it be
> > compatible and not compliant and how can it be compliant and not SONET.
> > Sigh.
> >
> > This leaves:
> >
> > SONET Friendly PHY
> > PHY with SONET framer
> > Telecom PHY
> >
> > Any more ideas?
> >
> > jonathan
-------------------------------------------------------
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