Re: [EFM-Copper] RE: [EFM] Official Nickname for our standard?
Colleagues:
How about Community area networks (CANs)?
Community movement is rapidly gaining momentum and is serving as an
alternate business model to service providers as well as a technological
solution to the first mile access problem.
Thanks.
Ashwin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Tolley" <btolley@cisco.com>
To: "Hugh Barrass" <hbarrass@cisco.com>; <John.Egan@infineon.com>
Cc: <stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org>; <stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org>;
<debby@cisco.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: [EFM-Copper] RE: [EFM] Official Nickname for our standard?
>
> Hugh and all
>
> Short reach and long reach are established terms in other metro segments,
> so much so that some folks think the S 1000BASE-SX stands for short reach.
>
> How about SR Copper and LR Copper?? Marking folks can then insert EFM SR
Cu
> and EFM LR Cu. Leaves room for IR cu.....:)))
>
> Bruce
>
>
> At 07:31 AM 5/25/2003 -0700, Hugh Barrass wrote:
>
> >John,
> >
> >... because "EFM" does not appear in either the PAR or anywhere in the
> >draft. We haven't adopted EFM as an "official" name for anything.
> >
> >Scott,
> >
> >One possibility might be 10P"reg name" and 2B"reg name" - with registers
> >applicable to both being 10P/2B"reg name" - that is fairly short and
unique.
> >
> >Alternatively SA"reg name" (by dropping the N, we avoid confusion with
the
> >storage version).
> >
> >Hugh.
> >
> >
> >John.Egan@infineon.com wrote:
> >
> > > Why not use EFMC?
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Scott Simon [mailto:scottprops@speakeasy.net]
> > > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 1:59 PM
> > > To: stds-802-3-efm@ieee.org; stds-802-3-efm-copper@ieee.org
> > > Subject: [EFM] Official Nickname for our standard?
> > >
> > > Hey All,
> > >
> > > Here's another question. Do we have an official nickname for our
> > standard? For example, 10GBASE-X registers in Clause 45 are called "10G
> > <register name>".
> > >
> > > Do we have something like "EFM <register name"? "10PASS-TS/2BASE-TL
> > <register name>" seems a little lengthy. Maybe we just live with the
> > long winded version, but is there a good alternative?
> > >
> > > As far as I remember, we are discouraged from using EFM in the
> > draft. What about these suggestions:
> > >
> > > SAN -- $ub$criber access network? (a good joke against our storage
> > colleagues)
> > > SuNe -- $ub$criber network?
> > > SAP -- $ub$criber access PHY?
> > >
> > > What does everyone think?
> > >
> > > I have a comment to put something in front of the 10PASS-TS/2BASE-TL
> > registers, I'll just use the long winded version if no one has a better
idea.
> > >
> > > -=Scott
>
>
> Bruce Tolley
> Senior Manager, Emerging Technologies
> Gigabit Systems Business Unit
> Cisco Systems
> 170 West Tasman Drive
> MS SJ B2
> San Jose, CA 95134-1706
> internet: btolley@cisco.com
> ip phone: 408-526-4534
>
>