--On Friday, 22 February, 2008 15:17 -0500 Dan York
<dyork@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'll agree, too. We had some challenges getting the RUCUS
> mailing list up and running and then getting the web archives
> of the list up and running but the support folks were great to
> work with and got things sorted out rapidly.
Folks, what I said was "How much more of this will it take
before you conclude that we have a problem?". That is a
question, not an assertion that things are hopelessly snafued
(or anything equivalent to that). I even accept Bill's
proposed answer of "A lot". Like several others, I've been very
favorably impressed with how quickly AMS has gotten on top of
problems and gotten them resolved once they are identified.
I am concerned that insufficient resources were allocated to
manage and test for what Bill describes as "hundreds of things to
manage". Some of that is due to an accident of bad timing that
was presumably under no one's control: a cutover of the
secretariat and web sites after, as Russ pointed out,
registrations for IETF71 had already started. But I do believe
that, if we ever recompete secretariat services again, the IAOC
at the time should be sure they understand the risks and be sure
that adequate investments are made to, at least, avoid repeating
the types of problems that have been uncovered this time. That
doesn't necessarily imply that we (or AMS) should be doing
anything different now --again, I've been very impressed by the
diligence with with problems have been addressed and the speed
of recovery from them. It does imply that we should not be
saying "well, these things happen". In particular, it implies
that the IAOC needs to be sure that there is institutional
memory about things we are learning from this transition (and
even from the CRNI->Neustar one) so that we are better prepared
for "next time".
That is all, really.
john
_______________________________________________
IETF mailing list
IETF@xxxxxxxx
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf