This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[ncc-services-wg] Incident Response Service (IRS) [was: Unneeded RIPE tasks] (fwd)
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Incident Response Service (IRS) [was: Unneeded RIPE tasks] (fwd)
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Incident Response Service (IRS) [was: Unneeded RIPE tasks] (fwd)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Henk Uijterwaal (RIPE-NCC)
henk at ripe.net
Mon Aug 25 10:35:39 CEST 2003
Dear Hank, > > > 2) is there any WG which could be polled or which has "adopted" this > > > activity for definition and development (or is expected to do so)? > > > > As soon as the AP2004 is approved, we (Daniel K and myself) will write an > > implementation document, describing the activities proposed under section > > 5 in more detail.This document will be circulated to, I'd guess, the > > services-WG and discussed there. > > And you do not see this a procedurally wrong? Wherever I work, whenever > they want to do "something new", they need to write it up fully, indicate > the budget and manpower needed and then submit to management. Based on > that info, management can make an intelligent decision. I've seen this approach. I've also worked at places where the LOI/TDR approach was used: the first document ("Letter of Intent") gave a global outline of the activity, goals, deadlines, costs, manpower, etc. Only when this was approved, a second document ("Technical Design Report") was written discussing all the details. I personally believe that this approach makes much more sense, why waste time/money to work out details _before_ there is consensus that the activity should be persued in the first place. > Instead, we have 1 paragraph describing what will be done in general and > once the AP2004 is approved based on that, only then do we find out how > much all this cost. This is not correct. There is indeed only one paragraph in the AP2004, due to space constraints. However, there is also the strategy paper: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/hostcount.html with more details about the IS activity. This paper was discussed at RIPE45 and people have been invited to comment on this document on the tt-wg at ripe.net list. Then the proposed budget: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/budget2004-aoa97.html and http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/budget2004-aoa03.html does contain an estimated budget for this activity. If you have any specific questions about the 2 documents mentioned above, I suggest that we take them to the tt-wg at ripe.net list. Henk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal at ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre WWW: http://www.ripe.net/home/henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That problem that we weren't having yesterday, is it better? (Big ISP NOC)
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Incident Response Service (IRS) [was: Unneeded RIPE tasks] (fwd)
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Incident Response Service (IRS) [was: Unneeded RIPE tasks] (fwd)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]