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

RE: Nomenclature update

I could probably live with something relatively close to that.  I do have an
issue with using 4 because is it suppose to define 4 parallel fibers or 4
wavelengths.  If you use the examples you gave, it should refer to 4
parallel fibers.

It was also requested during the Interim meeting that we keep the order from
the bottom of the layer diagram up.  This would result in a nomenclature
such as ...BASE-S4X.  For the Serial implementation, we could use -SX, and
for the WDM implementation, we could SMX.  Although, S4X may not be a bad
idea for adding more wavelengths in the future.



		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Seto, Koichiro [mailto:seto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
		Sent:	Tuesday, May 30, 2000 10:49 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 as 
		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 100BASE-T2 
		as 100BASE-T2.  As long as the transmission scheme is
serial, we don't 
		need another letter to distinguish serial as serial.  

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

		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
		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 follow.