RE: Avoiding Confusion in the Marketplace
Mike,
You have a good point. We should agree and adopt a one liner. It's not
Ethernet but it is often viewed as Ethernet on a ring topology with
Sonet/SDH performance and protection mechanisms. Simply RPR may not cut it.
How about something simple like "RPR: Ethernet on a ring". I don't want to
suggest that this is the right one-liner but something simple and
descriptive is required, or, people will create their own general
description which will confuse the market.
Luc
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Takefman [mailto:tak@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 7:01 PM
To: stds-802-rprsg@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Avoiding Confusion in the Marketplace
People,
For those of you who were not at the 802 plenary last
week I want to inform you of an issue that we will
have to watch diligently.
Members of 802.3 expressed concern that the "market"
will confuse 802.17 with 802.3 because we plan to
re-use some of the physical layer work done in
802.3.
I publicly stated to 802.3 that the intent of the
RPRSG and by extension 802.17 (should we be approved)
will be to make crystal clear to everyone that
RPR != Ethernet even though we may share the same
PHY layers.
Let me be blunt, we do not want to have any sort of
flap with 802.* over this issue. Inspite of concern
over this issue they voted to allow our creation and
I do not want to betray that trust.
Under no circumstances should any company or individual
(working in 802.17 or affiliating itself to 802.17)
suggest that RPR == Ethernet. Any reference to Ethernet (be
it
1GE or 10GE) should be that RPR will use the same
physical layer as 1 or 10 GE.
I would appreciate that people forward this message to
their company's marketing people and ask that I am
contacted if there is any confusion. I am not asking to
become a clearinghouse for announcements, as there
is a clear conflict with my role as a Cisco employee.
I am asking that all of you work to insure we do
not annoy our colleagues in other 802 groups.
If any of you come across any public material that is
questionable, please forward me a pointer to it
ASAP.
thank you for your attention,
mike