On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 07:11:21PM -0400, David Andersen wrote:
On Jun 8, 2005, at 4:46 PM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 06:30:50PM +0000, Fergie (Paul Ferguson) wrote:
What's the matter with simply using the mailing list? Don't reinvent the wheel.
For precisely that reason, I, personally, am on your side. It's not the *best* solution, but it's probably the least worst.
As a comment from the research side - I know several people who've ended up combing the NANOG mailing list archives for outage reports of various sorts (myself included). Perhaps a great middle step on this if people were to agree on a quasi-maybe-slightly-standard format for reporting outages to the mailing list, so that the statistics gathering types can mine through and get at the data.
I'm not suggesting that all mail to nanog be XML-encoded goop, but some loose text convention might help move things along nicely. Over time, I suspect that a general consensus style would emerge.
Probably RFC-822 style headers between ==BEGIN OUTAGE== and ==END OUTAGE== or something akin to that. It remains easy to parse, especially by the most likely subect, perl. A subject-line tag is probably not out of the question, either. But, of course, we're figuring out the best way to implement something that we haven't completely decided is the best idea. :-) Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com Designer +-Internetworking------+----------+ RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates | Best Practices Wiki | | '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://bestpractices.wikicities.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me