RE: [EFM] Ethernet Subscriber Access (ESA)
Bob-
I have taken no action to register the term
I will not take any action to register the term for the benefit of my employer.
A quick search of the US PTO site does not indicate that it is taken.
I have not used the term in any other context to the best of my recollection.
Ergo, the term is freely available for use by this activity as far as I know.
Geoff
At 01:36 PM 9/15/01 +0100, Bob Barrett wrote:
>Again, a bit late on the thread:
>
>The Ethernet Subscriber Access (ESA) terminology, suggested by Geoff, is
>both simple and easily distinguished from EFM.
>
>Geoff - can you confirm that you are donating this terminology to the
>industry without a trade mark associated with it please?
>
>Thanks
>
>Bob
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org
> > [mailto:owner-stds-802-3-efm@majordomo.ieee.org]On Behalf Of Geoff
> > Thompson
> > Sent: 05 September 2001 00:17
> > To: carlosal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org
> > Subject: Re: [EFM] EFM x 802.3ah - broad picture x narrow scope
> >
> >
> >
> > Carlos-
> >
> > I agree with your concepts but not your terminology.
> >
> > EFM and P802.3ah belong to each other and go together. EFM as a term was
> > created by the EFM Study Group. This group will become the P802.3ah Task
> > Force later this month and I fully expect them to hang onto the EFM label.
> >
> > The larger concept of the network, new standards (802.1, IETF and
> > ???) and
> > hardware (ruggedized switches, reliable power...) needed to provide high
> > speed Ethernet connections from subscribers into service provider
> > networks
> > needs a label of its own.
> >
> > Ethernet Subscriber Access (ESA) would be my choice.
> >
> > Geoff Thompson
> >
> > At 07:27 PM 9/4/01 -0300, carlosal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > >Ryan,
> > >
> > >I'm posting this to everyone in the group, as it sums up my
> > opinion in the
> > >recent discussion about EFM scope.
> > >
> > >There are several seemingly incompatible requirements to meet.
> > We have to
> > >maintain compatibility with other Ethernet related standards such as
> > >802.1d, 802.1q, and so on; at the same time, working with public access
> > >networks is not the same as working with corporate customers. Some
> > >potential customers require long reach, others can work with
> > short reach.
> > >Some of the discussions are still at a somewhat 'intuitive' stage, where
> > >we have few actual data to make a informed decision.
> > >
> > >For me, the fundamental point is that 802.3ah is not the same as
> > "Ethernet
> > >First Mile". Given the name, EFM is more of a concept: it covers
> > all that
> > >is needed to bring Ethernet to the access network. 802.3ah is just this
> > >standard group, which has to keep a narrow scope. It's fair to say that
> > >there are good reasons for the narrow focus. The question now is, how to
> > >map all the requirements of the broad picture of "Ethernet First Mile"
> > >into the narrow scope of 802.3ah.
> > >
> > >Give this scenario, the trick is to find the key points that need to
> > >included into the 802.3ah standard in order to support the complete EFM
> > >proposition, without going way out of the scope. That's a huge quest for
> > >the group to solve.
> > >
> > >Carlos Ribeiro
> > >CTBC Telecom
> > >
> >