[outages] List comment

[virendra rode //]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Dan York wrote:
> 
> On Jun 24, 2008, at 1:15 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:44:22 EDT, Christian Blair said:
>>
>>> We don't need everyone's traceroute.
>>> Hardly useful for others anyway unless they're your roommate.
>>
>> Actually, you have that backwards.
>>
>> If somebody posts a traceroute from a vastly different network location,
>> that tells you something.
> 
> 
> I think the question really is - is this list designed for *reporting*
> and confirming outages?  Or is it designed for
> *diagnosing*/discussing/troubleshooting outages?
> 
> If someone reports an outage, there is a degree of working with the
> reporter to confirm the outage that is necessary.  (i.e. "AIM isn't
> working for me" and others either confirming or saying that it does work
> for them.)  There have, though, been a couple of threads where this
> exchange has seemed to go on for a bit more than simple confirmation and
> dived more into troubleshooting.
> 
> The "reporting/confirming" type of list is a lower-traffic kind of list
> that's more announcement/alert-oriented.  The "diagnosing/discussing"
> type of list could be a much higher-traffic list.    Both are worthwhile
> types of lists to have... but they also may attract different subscribers.
> 
> Based on a couple of comments I've seen here, I think some folks may
> have signed up thinking they were getting the first type of list and are
> less interested in the second type of list.  They may be more interested
> in "alerts" and not interested in "discussion".
- ---------------------------
Great feedback.

Lot of times the outages that are being reported could be specific to
one's local PE which may or may not impact others. In others words, the
outages that are being reported may not be confirmed until we have some
sort of feedback from user community confirming the same which I agree
could lead into outages discussion.
Until we establish that relationship/openness between network operator
community and providers we may have to rely on operator community
feedback confirming outage(s) and at the same time keeping it to a minimum.

Now if providers could be little more forthcoming and start reporting
their maintenance and outages then sure I can see those alerts being
filtered into something like 'outages-alerts' but until that happens I
think we may  need to feel the list further.


Thoughts?


regards,
/virendra


> 
> I don't have a great solution to offer... I think the "community" here
> is probably too new to split into separate "alerts" and "discussion"
> lists.  I also personally don't care which type of list it is.  But I
> would suggest this difference in expectations is perhaps at the route of
> the original comment and others that have been on the list.
> 
> My 2 cents,
> Dan
> 
> --Dan York, CISSP, Director of Emerging Communication Technology
> Office of the CTO    Voxeo Corporation     dyork at voxeo.com
> Phone: +1-407-455-5859  Skype: danyork  http://www.voxeo.com
> Blogs: http://blogs.voxeo.com  http://www.disruptivetelephony.com
> 
> Build voice applications based on open standards.
> Find out how at http://www.voxeo.com/free
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> outages mailing list
> outages at isotf.org
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/outages
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIYTwUpbZvCIJx1bcRAvlPAJ9IORHlF/ABtRTLntAn/bDCqMGIKQCg6qZY
pEPL6TxqEPBLbNkF8Y6lLTI=
=W5re
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----