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

Re: Nomenclature update




[Date: 05/31/2000  From Seto]

Brad,

I think I can live with your suggestion.

> 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.

Here comes my theory again.
When we defined the names for 802.3z, we did not leave a room for parallel 
optics.  Why should we now?  When we use a single strand of cable to transmit 
data, it's all taken as default.  So, I think ..BASE-S4X and ..BASE-L4X are 
perfectly OK for WWDM method we are discussing.  Should we ever come up with 
parallel optics, we could use something like ..BASE-S4XP.

Finally, if we define 'X' as 'block encoding using (default) single lane' and 
'X4' as 'block encoding using 4 lanes', we can use 10GBASE-LX, 10GBASE-SX, 
10GBASE-LX4 and 10GBASE-SX4.  It may be better as it can highlight the coding 
scheme difference between Quad 8B10B (X4) and serial 64B66B (X).  
The problem with this nomenclature is that SUPI is not necessarily a coding 
scheme.  It is more like PMA signaling scheme.  This would put us in 
questioning if we should use 'W4' as 4-lane SONET encoding scheme.  But I 
think 1000BASE-LW4 is very easy to understand and to remember.

Seto

> 
> 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.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks,
> Brad
> 
> 		-----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
> 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 follow.
> 
> 		Seto
> 
> 		
> 
>