[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[6bone] RFC2772 rewrite


 > If I don't hear anyone complain in 24 hours (good number to use)
 > we'll stick that in there :)


While I appreciate the sentiment behind this suggestion, and wouldn't be
surprised to find that most folks on the list meet the requirement, I'd
expect that there are some folks who do actually have a life and
actually do non work-related things at the weekend <gasp!> and I
wouldn't want to discourage that in any way!

Besides, there are plenty of other times when we're out of touch for
more than 24 hours, during which time we expect our networks to run
happily without our constant supervision, right?

As Daniel said:

 > I don't think that 24hours is bad for a *response* - maybe not
 > resolution though.

An autoresponder or ticketing system would meet the response requirement
without actually dealing with the problem in any way :-(

So what are we trying to achieve? To force the pTLA holder to respond,
or to encourage them to resolve the technical issue? What would happen
if it took 48 hours to respond to an issue - would the time police
reject the holder's pTLA? Will someone volunteer to be "big brother" to
ensure timely responses?

Perhaps all we should ask is that "the applicant agrees to respond to
technical problems in a timely fashion", and leave discernment to each
case as appropriate?

Paul Aitken
IPv6 Development, Cisco Systems Ltd, Edinburgh, Scotland.