[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[6bone] RFC2772 rewrite
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 16:32, Paul Aitken wrote:
> > 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!
2. The pTLA Applicant MUST have the ability and intent to provide
"production-quality" 6Bone backbone service. Applicants must
provide a statement and information in support of this claim.
This MUST include the following:
a. A support staff of two persons minimum, three preferable, with
person attributes registered for each in the ipv6-site object
for the pTLA applicant.
A pTLA is managed by many people.
If a network is correctly managed, there is always someone available for
solve technical problems.
> 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?
Autoresponder or ticketing system don't solve the problem of reply and
the technical problem.
Nicolas DEFFAYET, NDSoftware
NOC Website: http://noc.ndsoftwarenet.com/