GA.JRG@STANFORD.BITNET (June Genis) (01/18/90)
REPLY TO 01/17/90 02:04 FROM POLICY-L@BITNIC.BITNET "Discussion about BITNET policies": Re: Ahem, etc. >From: "Michael R. Gettes" <GETTES@PUCC.BITNET> >A ROUTTAB tag should be defined for each node entry. I believe this has been >accepted as a requirement for BITEARN NODES. Michael, how were these supposed to get added and how are people supposed to notice if they're missing? Our techrep mentioned to me last week that he has still never gotten any mail addressed specifically to techreps on this whole conversion to NETSERV based tools. He does not subscribe personally to this list or NODMGT-L nor is there any reason for the NIC to rpresume that all techreps are on this list unless they are insuring that fact with a monthly verification. If there are specific actions that techreps have to take to make this whole thing work a mailing should have been made to all techreps a long time ago telling them what. Given the confusion they should probably also be sent monthly status reports as well. /June To: POLICY-L@BITNIC.BITNET
GETTES@PUCC.BITNET (Michael R. Gettes) (01/19/90)
On Wed, 17 Jan 90 11:55:10 PST June Genis said: >REPLY TO 01/17/90 02:04 FROM POLICY-L@BITNIC.BITNET "Discussion about BITNET >policies": Re: Ahem, etc. > >>From: "Michael R. Gettes" <GETTES@PUCC.BITNET> >>A ROUTTAB tag should be defined for each node entry. I believe this has been >>accepted as a requirement for BITEARN NODES. > >Michael, how were these supposed to get added and how are people >supposed to notice if they're missing? Our techrep mentioned to me >last week that he has still never gotten any mail addressed >specifically to techreps on this whole conversion to NETSERV based >tools. He does not subscribe personally to this list or NODMGT-L >nor is there any reason for the NIC to rpresume that all techreps >are on this list unless they are insuring that fact with a monthly >verification. If there are specific actions that techreps have to >take to make this whole thing work a mailing should have been made >to all techreps a long time ago telling them what. Given the >confusion they should probably also be sent monthly status reports >as well. /June June, who is responsible for managing all the network information??? The entity in charge of this information was told by a group of volunteers that all you have just mentioned is true and correct and notification of this entire process is absolutely essential and implementation of same must be carefully considered for minimal impact. The advice of the group of volunteers was not accepted simply because the information management entity "disagreed" with the volunteers. No further constructive discussion followed, although some blood-pressure tests were necessary. The equation of who's who is left as an short-term project to the reader. I do not believe it is a difficult project. Given the interactions I have had with various/numerous sites around the network during the last six months and, additionally, the amount of time I am therefore spending on network problems, I believe I can fairly and justly state that the "state of the state" is worse now than it was one year ago today. /mrg