On Tue, 24 Oct 89 18:27:20 GMT Eric Thomas said:
>Here is an except from the minutes of the last EARN Network Operations
>Group meeting which I am afraid I simply cannot let pass.
>
>
>I take offense at the following statement, which is completely erroneous:
>
>> It was noted that certain EARN sites have been removed from the
>> BITNET version of PEERS NAMES, and that this was causing
>> problems.
>
>Either this information was brought to the NOG as it is written here, in
>which case we have a serious communication problem, or it was
>misunderstood by the person who wrote the minutes (and, given that Niall
>is quite knowledgeable about LISTSERV, it probably means it was
>misunderstood by a majority).
>
Gads, yep ... had to read it thrice to understand. It didn't occur to me in
the first place that someone really thinks that Eric removed those site from
PEERS NAMES ! Forgetting this mis-information I would like to know *what*
problems have been encountered. Could someone speak up??
>
>Shortly thereafter, I have received a note from Dermot O'Beirne from UCD
>(IRLEARN) explaining that, having been made responsible for EARN at UCD
>all of a sudden, it had taken him time to understand the day-to-day
>realities of EARN operations, and LISTSERV in particular.
I remember him asking for some help with LISTSERV, can't remember what the
topic has been but I'm sure if you are handed a LISTSERV with zilch
information and no docs on what has been set locally - well, you're in kinda
trouble.
>
>... our Italian colleagues ... seem however to be much faster at complaining
>than at taking corrective action,
>
LISTSERV@ICNUCEVM is diconnected and not receiving, at least since 3 hours.
>I am now strongly tempted to cease any technical cooperation regarding the
>LISTGATE project, and to stop wasting my time on maintaining compatibility
>with LISTEARN (which cost me 1h of time last week). I will wait until
>tomorrow to make sure my decision on this respect is not emotional, and I
>will then let you know what I have decided.
>
Well, I understand the temptation. I can't understand things like in the NOG
minutes excerpt. Who is trying what? If EARN (whoever that is in this context)
wants Eric to leave the hands off of LISTEARN, well then they should clearly
say and do so - i.e. either taking care that the LISTEARNs behave like they
are supposed to do, especially the backbones, or demand the split of LISTSERV
and LISTEARN. It would then be a clearer situation. The proposed text to
BITNET implies that PEERS NAMES is the only problem. It's in fact a very small
one - considering that there is no agreement between BITNET and EARN about the
compatibility of LISTSERV and LISTEARN.
Christian
|
