Re: WAN PHY name
You again raised the very problem with naming that is getting worse as we
progress. More and more of the same terms are being used for other things
in other, but related technologies. In spite of everything else, the "WAN
compatible PHY" may remain that because all other potential names create
----- Original Message -----
From: Erik van Oosten <evoosten@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Roy Bynum <rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <jay.hoge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx>; HSSG
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2000 8:03 AM
Subject: Re: WAN PHY name
> 'Compatible Optical' could easily be confused with the term
> 'Compatible Optics' which is the name for lasers on interfaces
> that directly feed a WDM system.
> Roy Bynum wrote:
> > Jay,
> > 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
> > PHY specifically because of the confusion that others are presenting.
> > 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
> > "supper character" on non-octet boundaries, with the same secondary
> > scrambling.
> > 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
> * Erik van Oosten
> * Lucent Technologies
> * mailto:evoosten@xxxxxxxxxx