FAC Object Creation per Policy #1185
Comments
martinhannigan
changed the title
|
+1 |
|
+1 assuming policy matches the flowchart |
|
+1 |
|
Same, assuming policy is good and we’re coding the policy in.
From: Matt Griswold ***@***.***>
Date: Thursday, July 7, 2022 at 12:11 PM
To: peeringdb/peeringdb ***@***.***>
Cc: Martin Hannigan ***@***.***>, Assign ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [peeringdb/peeringdb] FAC Object Creation per Policy (Issue #1185)
+1 assuming policy is good
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#1185 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFA2YQRGOF5PBYIDGXU5KM3VS36UDANCNFSM5YLLWBSQ>.
You are receiving this because you were assigned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
Hijacking this issue based on in person discussion with @peterhelmenstine et al. If an organization has 0 other facilities, they need to have a website and list 3 ASNs at their facility before it can be added to the approval queue. @peeringdb/pc please +1 this amendment :) |
|
3 ASN: 👍🏼
Website cost money. Not sold. And has been abused.
Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
…________________________________
From: Matt Griswold ***@***.***>
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 19:19
To: peeringdb/peeringdb ***@***.***>
Cc: Martin Hannigan ***@***.***>; Assign ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [peeringdb/peeringdb] FAC Object Creation per Policy (Issue #1185)
Hijacking this issue based on in person discussion with @peterhelmenstine<https://github.com/peterhelmenstine> et al.
If an organization has 0 other facilities, they need to have a website and list 3 ASNs at their facility before it can be added to the approval queue.
@peeringdb/pc<https://github.com/orgs/peeringdb/teams/pc> please +1 this amendment :)
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#1185 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFA2YQV3WS74RHCFKUSAGGDW7SUAJANCNFSM5YLLWBSQ>.
You are receiving this because you were assigned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
We should stick to the policy document. If an organization has 0 other facilities, they need endorsements from at least three parties afair. Hence, -1 to your proposal. Here is the outline of the attestation process mentioned above.
|
|
I think I mentioned 2 ASNs. If two ASNs meet somewhere that could be a facility no? This bypasses the need for a website. |
The policy documents says that 3 users must attest. Please let stick to the document which was approved by the board. No more discussions :) |
|
Restate.
Thats an IXP rule. ATT and VZ and Lumen are not vouching for a building “facility” on PDB. So more thought IMHO needed. Why does anyone need a website if they have PDB? Most /peering pages are gone as a result. All a building needs is PDB.
Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
…________________________________
From: Peter Helmenstine ***@***.***>
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 19:48
To: peeringdb/peeringdb ***@***.***>
Cc: Martin Hannigan ***@***.***>; Assign ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [peeringdb/peeringdb] FAC Object Creation per Policy (Issue #1185)
I think I mentioned 2 ASNs. If two ASNs meet somewhere that could be a facility no? This bypasses the need for a website.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#1185 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFA2YQTORP4IFANXBKZGIKDW7SXNTANCNFSM5YLLWBSQ>.
You are receiving this because you were assigned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
No more thoughts needed. We have a policy document which has consensus. Let's just implement what it says. |
|
If the policy doc was followed aid agree. Needs more specific logic. “Website?” = Yes. Or no. Not “maybe if $they like it”.
Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
…________________________________
From: Arnold Nipper ***@***.***>
Sent: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 8:00:18 PM
To: peeringdb/peeringdb ***@***.***>
Cc: Martin Hannigan ***@***.***>; Assign ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [peeringdb/peeringdb] FAC Object Creation per Policy (Issue #1185)
So more thought IMHO needed.
No more thoughts needed. We have a policy document which has consensus. Let's just implement what it says.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#1185 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFA2YQWUMMXJEBHNRLUR6V3W7SYZFANCNFSM5YLLWBSQ>.
You are receiving this because you were assigned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
Just to make sure which document we are talking about. Admin Committee Guidelines and Criteria for Approving Networks, IXPs, and Facilities We still need to add a chapter for |
|
It’s still early!On Apr 4, 2023, at 5:09 PM, Arnold Nipper ***@***.***> wrote:
Just to make sure which document we are talking about. Admin Committee Guidelines and Criteria for Approving Networks, IXPs, and Facilities
We still need to add a chapter for carrier, @job and @mustangthz
—Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
@leovegoda please add this to the agenda of our next call |
|
Perhaps I issed something. Are the assignees supposed to also set flags to move to implementation? We should put this on agenda for next call to clarity and either close or flag for implementation. @peeringdb/pc |
|
Where is this? |
|
It's still in Decide. Would you like it added to the agenda on the next @peeringdb/pc meeting? |
|
It' a board issue. I had earlier tagged it board. Doesn't seem like any new reason to change that. I will re-tag. |
|
Can someone put something concise together for the board to make a decision?
… On Nov 25, 2023, at 10:32 PM, Martin Hannigan ***@***.***> wrote:
It' a board issue. I had earlier tagged it board. Doesn't seem like any new reason to change that. I will re-tag.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1185 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIV5MPX55QAFY2L65OMO4FLYGKZ4FAVCNFSM5YLLWBS2U5DIOJSWCZC7NNSXTN2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQ5TCOBSGY2DOOJQHE4A>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
|
|
@mustangthz I think it makes sense to work this into #1408 if the PC agrees. |
|
Expect to merge with 1408 and its a policy issue. Perhaps solvable with PC consensus on next call. |
|
There is support for this, but its effectively asking that set policy be enforced. This is an internal political issue for the board to decide. #1408 has its origins in issues that have been created by the lack of transparency and automation. Closing this as similar to #1408 which the discussion there should provide ample opportunity to resolve. |
|
Can someone put together a slide/1pager for what you want the board to decide wrt 1408?
… On Dec 6, 2023, at 8:30 AM, Martin Hannigan ***@***.***> wrote:
There is support for this, but its effectively asking that set policy be enforced. This is an internal political issue for the board to decide. #1408 <#1408> has its origins in issues that have been created by the lack of transparency and automation. Closing this as similar to #1408 <#1408> which the discussion there should provide ample opportunity to resolve.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1185 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIV5MPQ5G3YRHFUHJY4LXZTYICMQTAVCNFSM5YLLWBS2U5DIOJSWCZC7NNSXTN2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQ5TCOBUGMZDINJXGU2A>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
|
|
@martinhannigan Did you mean to close this issue? |
|
No. Corrected.
…On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 2:23 PM Leo Vegoda ***@***.***> wrote:
@martinhannigan <https://github.com/martinhannigan> Did you mean to close
this issue?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1185 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFA2YQUHAE46VHL6JTGYU6DYIIJSBAVCNFSM5YLLWBS2U5DIOJSWCZC7NNSXTN2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQ5TCOBUGU4TMOBTHA3A>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
The AC has too much work. Less DeskPro tickets means more time to spend with family. Or on other DeskPro tickets.
Who is affected by the problem?
Users and Admin Committee volunteers.
What is the impact?
A faster turn around on FAC object creation. Less work for the AC. Immediate use by the community.
Are there security concerns?
Unlikely.
Are there privacy concerns?
Unlikely.
Describe the solution you'd like
The FAQ object process is here: https://bit.ly/39ljjkX
If process step 2 is TRUE, then proceed to immediately create object and bypass human intervention.
Do you think this feature will require a formal design?
Yes, there is logic.
Describe alternatives you've considered
There are none.
What is the proposed priority?
Routine.
Provide a rationale for any/all of the above
Automation is good. Customer service is good. Continous and rapid expansion of interconnection opportunity and creating more options (competition, price pressures) good.
Additional context
None
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: