| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Brad,
Put me down for #1, for the same reason.
...Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Cornejo, Edward (Edward) [SMTP:ecornejo@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 7:53 AM
To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx; 'Booth, Bradley'
Subject: RE: Nomenclature poll...
Brad,
I vote for #1. Only in the case of WDM do you need a third suffix, so it
makes more sense to me to have at the very end of the nomenclature.
Ed
Lucent-opto
> ----------
> From: Booth, Bradley[SMTP:bradley.booth@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 4:47 PM
> To: stds-802-3-hssg@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: Nomenclature poll...
>
>
> Assuming that we go with 10GBASE- instead of 10kBASE-, which suffix
> structure does everyone prefer:
> 1) <wavelength> <coding scheme> <# of wavelengths>, or
> 2) <wavelength> <# of wavelengths> <coding scheme>
>
> An example of #1 would be: 10GBASE-SX for 850nm 64b/66b Serial, and
> 10GBASE-LW4 for 1310nm SONET compatible WDM.
>
> An example of #2 would be: 10GBASE-SX for 850nm 64b/66b Serial, and
> 10GBASE-L4W for 1310nm SONET compatible WDM.
>
>
> As a note, no matter which one we choose, we are still dealing with a
> large
> list of port types.
>
> Thanks,
> Brad
>
>