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

Re: Nomenclature update


Two point:

1) I'd give more weight to the "Marketing" angle of the nomenclature than to any
reason based on technical purity with respect to layering, prior documentation,

For example, 10GBASE-XX has a significantly better sound, look and "feel" than

2) If you're going to attempt to cover LAN/WAN, block/scrambled coding,
Longwave/Shortwave, Single/Parallel fiber, Serial/WDM, you might as well throw
in Fiber/Copper, Coax/Twisted-Pair, 780/850/980/1180/1300/1310/1550 nm etc.

Point is: Keep it simple. You're model is good enough at this point. Once we
settle on the PMDs which will go into the document we can finalize the XX or
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX designation according to guideline #1 above.

Best Regards,

"Booth, Bradley" wrote:
> 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
Richard Taborek Sr.                 Phone: 408-845-6102       
Chief Technology Officer             Cell: 408-832-3957
nSerial Corporation                   Fax: 408-845-6114
2500-5 Augustine Dr.        mailto:rtaborek@xxxxxxxxxxx
Santa Clara, CA 95054