- Previous message: Edward Lewis: "Re: Telcordia report on ICANN .net RFP Evaluation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
|
|
|
From: Jay R. Ashworth (no email)
Date: Fri Apr 01 2005 - 11:31:38 EST
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 04:28:01PM -0500, Howard, W. Lee wrote:
> Luke Parrish:
> > In this situation we were expecting to be done for the majority of
> > the maintenance window, but yes I see your point. However I block
> > out a 3 hour window for maintenance because the activities I am
> > performing on the network could easily cause a longer service outage
> > than planned as we all know. So if I plan for a 4 hour window but
> > only expect 20 minutes of downtime that actually turns into 3 hours,
> > as long as it is inside the maintenance window specified then it
> > should not go against outage minutes. It was done in the window for
> > a reason...
>
> I'd agree that as long as it's back up before the end of the window,
> you're covered. However, if the outage extends beyond the end of the
> window, I would take the the position that made me look worst. That
> shows how seriously you take your maintenance window, and I think this
> kind of integrity gives you credibility later.
You're both right. :-)
Yeah, Luke; that *is* why outage windows get defined, and,
fundamentally, what matters is how your SLA contract is written, and
clearly it should explicitly define this situation so no one has to
guess.
But, from a business, rather than legal, standpoint, Lee's right: the
choice *which* you should explicitly enshrine in that language probably
ought to be the one that helps your clients more than it helps you:
hey; you can write it off in Marketing's budget.
Cheers,
-- jra
-- Jay R. Ashworth Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 If you can read this... thank a system administrator. Or two. --me
|
|
|