RAF@NIHCU.BITNET (Roger Fajman) (02/28/90)
I'd like to point out that apparently BITNIC made a unilateral
decison to change the format of the linkfail tag to
(real_name) userid@node (phone number)
instead of the traditional
(firstname lastname) (fullphone#)
There was a reason that linkfail did not contain an email address:
it makes little sense to send email about a link that is down.
== Forwarded Mail ==
Received: from BITNIC.BITNET by NIHCU (Mailer) id 6887;
Tue, 27 Feb 90 13:35:56 EST
Received: by BITNIC (Mailer R2.03B) id 6886; Tue, 27 Feb 90 13:40:40 EST
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 90 13:38:46 EST
From: Rodney Elin <UPD_INFO@BITNIC>
Subject: Re: Answers to your questions
To: "Roger Fajman" <RAF@NIHCU>
In-Reply-To: Your message of Fri, 16 Feb 90 19:14:24 EST
>> For your first question, the (people) format has always been the standard:
>>
>> (real_name) userid@node (phone number)
>>
>> The problem is that this has only been enforced since we implemented
>> the update server machine.
>
>That's not true. The linkfail tag has always been different. I quote
>from the old REQUIRED INFO file:
>
>:linkfail 60
>Person to be contacted in
>the event of a link failure ________________________________
> format: (firstname lastname) (fullphone#)
>
>I can send the complete document if you like.
You are correct. Sorry if I confused you.
However, the CURRENT REQUIRED INFO1 linkfail tag has the
(real_name) userid@node (phone number)
format.
Rodney Elin
BITNICGETTES@PUCC.BITNET (Michael R. Gettes) (02/28/90)
On Tue, 27 Feb 90 20:06:00 EST Roger Fajman said: >I'd like to point out that apparently BITNIC made a unilateral >decison to change the format of the linkfail tag to > > (real_name) userid@node (phone number) > >instead of the traditional > > (firstname lastname) (fullphone#) > >There was a reason that linkfail did not contain an email address: >it makes little sense to send email about a link that is down. This is to come in line with the new format of BITEARN NODES. I do agree that this needed to be done. However, I do have some question about the userid@node that is applied and I do wish that notification to the network about such matters was more prevelant but apparently this is a secondary consideration. /mrg
mwh@IVORY.EDUCOM.EDU (Michael Hrybyk) (02/28/90)
> > On Tue, 27 Feb 90 20:06:00 EST Roger Fajman said: > >I'd like to point out that apparently BITNIC made a unilateral > >decison to change the format of the linkfail tag to > > > > (real_name) userid@node (phone number) > > > >instead of the traditional > > > > (firstname lastname) (fullphone#) > > > >There was a reason that linkfail did not contain an email address: > >it makes little sense to send email about a link that is down. Don't know that it was a 'unilateral decision.' We interpreted (possibly, with error) that the contact, inforep, linkfail, postmast, ... tags should use the first form. Also, it is defined as such in the new BITEARN NODES definition. If this is breaking any net applications out there, please let us know. Mike Hrybyk
MAINTCMS@PUCC.BITNET (John Wagner) (02/28/90)
On Tue, 27 Feb 90 20:10:07 EST Michael R. Gettes said: >On Tue, 27 Feb 90 20:06:00 EST Roger Fajman said: >>I'd like to point out that apparently BITNIC made a unilateral >>decison to change the format of the linkfail tag to >> >> (real_name) userid@node (phone number) >> >>instead of the traditional >> >> (firstname lastname) (fullphone#) >> >>There was a reason that linkfail did not contain an email address: >>it makes little sense to send email about a link that is down. >This is to come in line with the new format of BITEARN NODES. >I do agree that this needed to be done. However, I do have some >question about the userid@node that is applied and I do wish >that notification to the network about such matters was more >prevelant but apparently this is a secondary consideration. My (full node) updates that I was sending to the update server were always being failed for this. I fixed it by coding (using PUCC as an example): linkfail.(Shift Supervisor Operations) noid@pucc ((609) 258-6014) If all the rest of you will also code "noid" maybe they'll get the message. As far as meeting the requirements of the new format for BITEARN NODES, the phone number format is wrong. It must be changed to a format without parenthesis.
ERIC@SEARN.BITNET (Eric Thomas) (03/01/90)
It makes a lot of sense to have a LINKFAIL userid: if the A-B link is down and I cannot reach B, it makes of course no sense to try to reach the linkfail contact of node B but it does make sense to send TELL's or write a note to the linkfail of node A. This cannot possibly have broken any application because for EARN node the syntax had always included a userid@node (at least, as far as I can remember). Eric
MAB@CORNELLC.BITNET (Mark Bodenstein) (03/01/90)
On Wed, 28 Feb 90 17:35:14 Eric Thomas said: >It makes a lot of sense to have a LINKFAIL userid: if the A-B link is >down and I cannot reach B, it makes of course no sense to try to reach >the linkfail contact of node B but it does make sense to send TELL's or >write a note to the linkfail of node A. ... > Eric Another reason this is useful is if you have another way to reach B, e.g. TCP/IP or separate PVM-type link. I have on occasion used TELNET to reach such a B, gotten a logon screen, and sent messages to the operator or linkfail contact at B from the logon screen. Mark Bodenstein (mab@cornellc; 607-255-3747) Cornell University