[6bone] RFC2772 rewrite

[Daniel Austin]

I think that is a better description than the one i gave earlier.  A provider may take a bit longer on occasion, but if a provider
constantly has problems and doesnt resolve them within a reasonable amount of time - we should look at that.
Of course "reasonable amount of time" could mean anything.

I personally make sure that i reply to any serious ipv6 request or problem within 24 hours.  If i'm not available for that period of
time, there are other people who will deal with the request.
I know that for many organisations this might not be possible as, of course, ipv6 makes them no money right now!  But i think we're
trying to say that a provider should be positive in its responses if they plan to supply ipv6 services in the future.


With Thanks,

Daniel Austin,
Managing Director,
kewlio.net Limited.
<daniel@kewlio.net>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert J. Rockell" <rrockell@sprint.net>
To: "Paul Aitken" <paitken@cisco.com>
Cc: "6BONE List" <6bone@mailman.isi.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: [6bone] RFC2772 rewrite


> How about something to the effect of:
>
> "pTLA holder should be responsive.  Preferably, a response within 24 hours is
> appreciated.  If a pTLA holder is non-responsive to repetitive requests for
> assistance, or does not resolve a problem in a timely fasion, the 6bone
> mailing serves as a great place to bring this issue to a greater audience.
> Should a pTLA continually remain unresponsive to issues surrounding the
> behavior of that pTLA, said pTLA holder may be subject to repremand, with
> the potential of revocation of that pTLA, based on concensus by <some
> steering group>"
>
> I'll not commment as to whether my weekend qualifies as 'having a life' or
> not, I do agree that 24 hours is a best effort practice... I've had our
> sysadmins BREAK my e-mail for more than 24 hours, if you can belive that...
>
> So 24 hours is a guideline, but not a 'move it or lose it' rule?
>
> Make sense?
>
>
> Thanks
> Rob Rockell
> SprintLink
> (+1) 703-689-6322
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Paul Aitken wrote:
>
> ->Rob,
> ->
> -> > If I don't hear anyone complain in 24 hours (good number to use)
> -> > we'll stick that in there :)
> ->
> ->*complain*
> ->
> ->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?
> ->
> ->Cheers.
> ->--
> ->Paul Aitken
> ->IPv6 Development, Cisco Systems Ltd, Edinburgh, Scotland.
> ->
>
> _______________________________________________
> 6bone mailing list
> 6bone@mailman.isi.edu
> http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone
>