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

Re: WAN PHY name


You are stating the very confusion that has been prominent about the WAN
compatible PHY.  I have not been using "SONET" or "SDH" in the name of the
PHY specifically because of the confusion that others are presenting.  The
proposed WAN compatible PHY uses a "SONET/SDH Lite" frame and scramble
encoding, as well as direct mapping of 802.3 Ethernet MAC frames using a
"frame stuffing" on octet boundaries, with secondary scrambling of the
payload.  There have been other presentations that proposed a bit oriented
"supper character" on non-octet boundaries,  with the same secondary

All of this concern about the so-called "name" is just adding to the
confusion.    It would be just as accurate to call it the "Compatible
Optical" or "CO" PHY.

Thank you,
Roy Bynum

----- Original Message -----
From: <jay.hoge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: HSSG <stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, April 03, 2000 3:25 AM
Subject: Re: WAN PHY name

> There is a "yes, but..." here. To say that because we are IEEE 802.3
> instead of the ITU doesn't remove the confusion factor. I'm free to call
> horse a dog, but it still won't hunt...and it'll sure as Hell confuse
> people looking for quail.
> To attach the name SONET (or SDH) to something has a lot of implications
> for telecom people. If everyone insists that SONET go into the name, we
> should call it the "SONET Incompatable PHY", because in no real sense is
> compatable with those features which are unique to the SONET / SDH
> WAN PHY is better in that it, at least, doesn't confuse people in the
> business.
> Once again, it seems to me that the majority of users interested in this
> PHY will have a Telecom, as contrasted to Datacom, orientation. Thus,
> calling it a Telecom PHY makes a natural distinction which will both give
> potential users some guidance and let Jonathan give journalists a simple
> set of names they can understand.