Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: WAN PHY name


I agree that SONET is a very specific term which suggests meeting SONET
standard.  If we use it loosely, we will create misleading the public

It seems, so far, no on can come up a simple term to replace WAN-PHY.


Edward S. Chang
NetWorth Technologies, Inc.
Tel: (610)292-2870
Fax: (610)292-2872
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx

[mailto:owner-stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Paul Bottorff
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 6:57 PM
To: Gary Nicholl; jay.hoge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jonathan Thatcher
Cc: HSSG_reflector (E-mail)
Subject: RE: WAN PHY name


I agree. Using the word SONET in any part of the WAN-PHY name will confuse
the market. As you point out the WAN-PHY is not SONET compliant, can not be
tested as SONET, and therefore should not use the term SONET.



At 06:12 PM 4/3/00 -0400, Gary Nicholl wrote:
>I agree with Jay.
>I'm still having a difficult time with an interface that has SONET in it's
name, is based on SONET framing but that you can't test using a standard
SONET test-set. I think this will only lead to confusion.
>The first thing that someone will do is connect it to a SONET test-set and
find that it fails all the jitter and clocking specifications.
>Gary ...
>contains SONET in the name
>At 03:24 AM 4/3/00 , jay.hoge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>To repeat my earlier comment, I think that any mention of SONET is likly
>>lead to confusion.
Paul A. Bottorff, Director Switching Architecture
Enterprise Solutions Technology Center
Nortel Networks, Inc.
4401 Great America Parkway
Santa Clara, CA 95052-8185
Tel: 408 495 3365 Fax: 408 495 1299 ESN: 265 3365
email: pbottorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx