RE: WAN PHY name
Len,
If I might take your message and make three minor modifications:
Having spent over *XX* years in *Datacom*, the *LAN* PHY
nomenclature seems to me to be the most appropriate and least
confusing name that comes to mind. It isn't SONET because it
isn't SONET and it isn't either Telecom because other than telecom
applications would find it useful. (Why start out with a
market limiting handicap?) Its support of link distances over
2km gives it some claim to wide area networking coverage; its
potential application within the central office, i.e., switch
to switch, gives it some claim to telecommunications
networking; its potential use in the LAN gives it some claim
to data; so....
Do you see the problem? There are many other minor variations that all
yield equally valid statements. Since there is some desire by the committee
to have common PMDs for the 10.0 and 9.5 Gb/s versions of the PHY, using
distance doesn't differentiate any better than LAN and WAN.
Let's not give up on this. If it were trivial, we would have solved it long
ago....
jt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Young, Leonard G [mailto:YoungLG@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 6:10 AM
> To: HSSG_reflector (E-mail); 'Jonathan Thatcher'
> Subject: RE: WAN PHY name
>
>
> Having spent over 26 years in Telecom, the WAN PHY
> nomenclature seems to me to be the most appropriate and least
> confusing name that comes to mind. It isn't SONET because it
> isn't SONET and it isn't Telecom because other than telecom
> applications would find it useful. (Why start out with a
> market limiting handicap?) Its support of link distances over
> 2km gives it some claim to wide area networking coverage; its
> potential application within the central office, i.e., switch
> to switch, gives it some claim to telecommunications
> networking; its potential use in the LAN gives it some clain
> to data; so....
>
> Len Young
>
>
> > ----------
> > From: Jonathan
> Thatcher[SMTP:Jonathan.Thatcher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2000 3:05 AM
> > To: HSSG_reflector (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: WAN PHY name
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
>