Re: WAN PHY name
[Date: 04/01/2000 From Seto]
Jonathan,
How about 'SONET Framing PHY'?
It seems to me what so-called 'WAN PHY' folks are wanting is SONET framing.
SONET friendly PHY sounds OK, but there is another 'SONET friendly PHY' proposal
that does not use SONET framing, i.e. XGENIE proposal from Osamu Ishida of NTT.
If we use XGENIE, we can achieve most of the things that SONET signaling is
serving for. It seems to me this, too, is a SONET friendly proposal.
Seto
>
> I have been thinking about this a great deal and have yet to find what is
> really loveable.
>
> I recommend that we don't want the "word" WAN anywhere in the definition. To
> include it implies that we believe that WAN and SONET are in some way
> equivalent. While some people may in their hearts believe this, a number
> would be quite adverse....
>
> If we remove "WAN" as an option, we are pretty much left with "SONET" as a
> key qualifier (or "Telecom"). What I remember seeing so far:
>
> SONET Friendly PHY
> SONET Compatible PHY
> PHY with SONET framer
> SONET-compliant PHY
> Telecom PHY
>
> A number of people voiced dislike for use of the words "compatible" and
> "compliant." I remember the arguments being something like: how can it be
> compatible and not compliant and how can it be compliant and not SONET.
> Sigh.
>
> This leaves:
>
> SONET Friendly PHY
> PHY with SONET framer
> Telecom PHY
>
> Any more ideas?
>
> jonathan