Re: I-D (Re: Out of date contact information )

[Ed Morin]

The issue of "response time" is a good one to consider.  It might be nice
if "best current practice" for expected response times on each alias is
part of the documented list/table.  This helps the providers to alias the
addresses to appropriate parties that would, hopefully, be able to provide
a response within a commonly expected timeframe.  I suspect a lot of the
frustration experienced with inter-ISP communications has a lot to do with
different response time standards/expectations/understandings.

My $.02; YMMV,

Ed

On Mon, 6 May 1996, Curtis Villamizar wrote:

> 
> In message <9605030534.AA13791@wisdom.home.vix.com>, Paul A Vixie writes:
> > 
> >    3.2. Protocol Independent Addresses
> > 
> >       Address   Operations Area      Example Usage
> >       --------------------------------------------------------------
> >       abuse     Customer Relations   Inappropriate public behaviour
> >       noc       Network Operations   Network infrastructure problem
> >       trouble   Network Operations   Synonym for ``noc''
> >       support   Customer Support     Product or service not working
> 
> 
> At least with ANS "trouble" and "noc" are not synonymous.  NOC is lots
> of people involved in network operations and normal trouble reporting
> (can't get there from here reporting) need not bother the whole group.
> Trouble is the current NOC staff on duty and are supposed to respond
> immediately to mail in the trouble mailbox, usually openning a trouble
> ticket and diagnosing the problem, in doing so starting the 15 minute
> escallation timer for the oncall engineer.  They also in practice
> respond immediately to mail in the NOC mailbox, but then a lot of
> people not on duty have to delete the mail when they come on call
> which just makes more work.
> 
> If other providers have the same conventions or agree that these
> conventions are usefull, then write them up however you like (more
> briefly than I have done would be nice).
> 
> Another common mailing list is routing@provider.  This is intended
> more for technical routing questions or to resolve routing issues
> between providers.  This is more for routing design issues so
> immediate response should not be expected on this list.  Any "routing
> is broken" messages should go to trouble, so they need to they can
> page the people that can fix it rather than let it sit in some
> engineer's mailbox.
> 
> It would be great if later you could include some of the NIC and IRR
> mailboxes.  Maybe next revision.  For example:
> 
> 	auto-dbm   Automated Registry    Register routing objects
> 		except MCI - auto-rr@mci.net
> 
> Only problem is I don't think there is consistency in the address
> registries and routing registries use of mail aliases.  Maybe this
> could go on the RA web page and when there is better consistency, put
> this in an RFC.
> 
> Curtis
> 

Ed Morin
Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505 (voice)
Professional Internet Services
edm@nwnexus.WA.COM

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -