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

RE: Nomenclature update

Your nomenclature seems much easier to decipher and more in line with
existing conventions. I believe it will be beneficial to work from your
suggestion as a base line. 

Paul Kolesar

	From:  Seto, Koichiro [SMTP:seto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
	Sent:  Tuesday, May 30, 2000 11:49 PM
	To:  stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
	Subject:  Re: Nomenclature update

	[Date: 05/30/2000  From Seto]

	Hello again,

	Here is another theory.  Let me see if this works.

	In 100BASE-TX, 1000BASE-SX, 1000BASE-LX and so on, we assume serial
	default.  We don't call 100BASE-FX as 100BASE-FX1 or 100BASE-TX as 
	100BASE-TX1, even though we call 100BASE-T4 as 100BASE-T4 and
	as 100BASE-T2.  As long as the transmission scheme is serial, we
	need another letter to distinguish serial as serial.  

	According to this theory, we may be able to name 10GBASE-xxx as

	850nm Serial LAN	10GBASE-SX
	1310nm Serial LAN	10GBASE-LX
	1550nm Serial LAN	10GBASE-EX
	850nm WWDM LAN		10GBASE-SX4
	1310nm WWDM LAN		10GBASE-LX4

	850nm Serial WAN	10GBASE-SW
	1310nm Serial WAN	10GBASE-LW
	1550nm Serial WAN	10GBASE-EW
	850nm WWDM WAN		10GBASE-SW4
	1310nm WWDM WAN		10GBASE-LW4

	I know there is a flaw in my new theory.  According to this theory, 
	1000BASE-T should have been called '1000BASE-T4'.  ;-)
	In any event, I think the naming of an Ethernet standard has been
very much 
	market oriented.  Usually, the names come first and the reasons


	> I agree with Seto.
	> I like 10GBASE-??? much better than 10kBASE-???.
	> I don't want to have to go another round with all of the style
	> keepers of the world explaining how to capitalize 10kBASE-???.
	> 10G is already developing an identity, and we should take
advantage of this.
	> Just ask your self: Which of these choices makes me think of 10
	> 10G
	> or
	> 10k
	> Howard Frazier
	> Cisco Systems, Inc.