RJ designations

From: Randy McLaughlin <cctalk_at_randy482.com>
Date: Tue Feb 22 14:59:07 2005

From: "Eric Smith" <eric_at_brouhaha.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 2:48 PM
> Steve Thatcher wrote:
>> in general, people have called them by RKxx, whether it is correct or not
>> is academic. When did you last xerox something...
>>
>> it really doesn't matter whether there is a USOC or not.
>>
>> it is whatever the general consensus settles on.
>
> There isn't a general consensus. There are people who (incorrectly)
> use RJ22 to refer to a four-position modular connector, and there
> are people who (correctly) use RJ22 to refer to a 50 position connector
> for a key system. You'll be very disappointed if you try to order
> one and actually receive the other, so I think it very much DOES matter
> that there is a standard for it, and that we should use terminology
> consistent with the standard.
>
> If it didn't matter what we called it, we might as well call it an
> RJ37.26. We might as well call EIA-232 "JQG129" instead.
>
> Eric


Call me crazy but I have seen one reference to RJ22X as a multi-line
interface and dozens of references to RJ-22 as a small 4 pin modular
connector.

I don't know what's right, what are you using to back up the statement:
"There are people who (incorrectly) use RJ22 to refer to a four-position
modular connector, and there are people who (correctly) use RJ22 to refer to
a 50 position connector for a key system."

Randy
Received on Tue Feb 22 2005 - 14:59:07 GMT