<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

SIRCE - again (this is the intended text of my reflection...)

  • To:
  • From: Lajos Balint < >
  • Date: Thu, 28 Nov 1996 10:39:31 +0100
  • Alternate-recipient: Allowed
  • Cc:
  • X400-content-type: P2-1984 (2)
  • X400-mts-identifier: [/PRMD=hungarnet/ADMD=0/C=hu/;ELLA-28830-961128103931@localhost]
  • X400-originator: h48bal@localhost
  • X400-received: by /PRMD=surf/ADMD=400net/C=nl/; Relayed; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 10:41:12 +0100
  • X400-received: by mta relay.surfnet.nl in /PRMD=surf/ADMD=400net/C=nl/; Relayed; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 10:41:12 +0100
  • X400-received: by /PRMD=hungarnet/ADMD=0/C=HU/; Relayed; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 10:39:32 +0100
  • X400-received: by /PRMD=hungarnet/ADMD=0/C=hu/; Relayed; Thu, 28 Nov 1996 10:39:31 +0100
  • X400-recipients: non-disclosure:;

Dear Daniel,

By reflecting your Wed, 27 Nov 1996 16:27:38 +0100 e-mail,
let me first emphasize that my original message didn't aim at
hurting anybody. It was a trial of explaining the situation
(i.e. the relatively low level of commitments) and also our
own hesitation until now.

If I try to reflect your reaction, I have to further explain
what I wrote yesterday, and here I'm in a really uncomfortable
situation. While I don't want to be impolite, and I try to
avoid offending you, I'm forced to go into some more details.

What I wanted to point out in my yesterday message was that the
situation was more complex than it might have turned out of the
exchange of messages about commitments. What I felt in the
recent period of time was that ISPs were repeatedly urged to
make their commitments so that they even could feel blamed by
not doing so.

Let me begin with repeating my last sentence of my previous
message: I hope that the problem is not overall lack of interest
in European CERT coordination but just a result of the still
open situation about the CERT coordination issue, in general.
Namely: RIPE NCC started to collect commitments before TERENA
made a decision. And, although RIPE-149 and TIPE-150 did talk
about TERENA's intent, RIPE NCC did behave during the last weeks
like suggesting that the ISP's had to make a decision about your
plan.

I have to stress that RIPE NCC is always excellent in doing
its job but, probably (and by my sincere belief) with the honest
will, in this case did forget to take into consideration all the
rules of the game.

I try to understand your reaction to my earlier message (and
the conduct how you handle the CERT coordination matter) but I
mustn't forget the interests of the service providers. And I also
should keep in mind the other potential CERT coordinators, too.

The service providers need the best coordination service, so
their interest is to wait until the (hopefully most advantageous)
decision by TERENA is made.

On the other hand, the potential CERT coordinators are well
behaving if they wait until TERERNA decides about their proposals,
and organization of CERT coordination is to be started by the
selected one, as soon as the decision is made.

You are right: documents RIPE-149 and RIPE-150 are, as I
emphasized in my first message, well describing all the details.
Of course, if I did speak about "misleading", I didn't think of
an intentional thing. The problem is with what followed: the
forceful activity toward collecting commitments. This was really
a disturbing process: readers of your messages could feel
uncomfortable by not committing. And this is what I called
misleading (sorry for the wording, probably by a better knowledge
of English I could have found a more appropriate expression):
if I feel a pressure to do something without real reasons of
doing that, I'm mislead by being bombarded.

If you don't agree with my above thoughts, it is understandable.
Your goal was (is) to get support and you did think that the
way you selected was the appropriate one. Maybe there are some ISPs
(ISP representatives) being happy with the way you choose. However,
I guess, I'm not alone with my feelings about the situation.

Originally I didn't want to send my previous message by going into
details of the process. I simply wanted to inform you yesterday
(the deadline) just about HUNGARNET's interest in the CERT
coordination project, by adding that if the RIPE NCC would be
selected, HUNGARNET would be ready to commit ECU 500.

However, in the last minute there was your reaction to Petter's
message which I didn't want to leave without comments. Although
Petter himself didn't react your reflection, somebody had to react
in favour of him. He was correct with all of his words. But
the reaction he did get was not the most appropriate one: it
didn't reflect Petter's message about not committing before TERENA's
decision but did, by a certain way, criticise his behaviour. Just
what I tried to point out above about RIPE NCC's pressurizing manner
in this matter. Moreover, your wording had a certain kind of prejudice,
a kind of assuming something fishy about the CERT TAG, which is more
than impolite from you. That's why I tried to go into details about
the full process and not just about HUNGARNET's conditional
commitment.

Of course, I didn't want to generate a controversy but only wanted
to draw the attention of all interested parties to another side of
the coin.

Fraankly saying, I'm sorry for this debate. I admire RIPE NCC
and especially you for your excellent work in general. I'm also
sure that if finally the RIPE NCC will be selected by TERENA for
European CERT coordination, the task will be performed by a
similarly high quality and enthusiasm. (Which doesn't mean any
qualification of the other candidates.) Moreover, if the RIPE
NCC will be the winner, HUNGARNET will fully support your
CERT coordination activity, too. But even so, I mustn't hide
the truth (at least by my feelings). Again I emphasize: without
the intention of hurting anybody, but just for helping.

I hope that also you, Daniel, have a more fragmented picture now
of the situation, even if you possibly don't agree with all the
details of my arguments.

Let me finish again by my sincere words:

Regards and best wishes (to you and to the RIPE NCC, too),

Lajos

P.s.: I would be glad not to continue with this debate. I admit
      that the RIPE NCC did prepare a set of attractive documents.
      I admit that, if selected by TERENA, RIPE NCC would surely
      be an excellent CERT coordinator. I emphasize again that
      HUNGARNET is interested in European CERT coordination and
      is ready to commit to the prospective coordinator to be
      selected by TERENA (either the RIPE NCC or any other
      organization). I'm ready to admit that my wording about
      "misleading" was not the fortunate one. On the other hand,
      I stress that advance collecting of commitments and
      especially the manner of the process are not fully agreeable.
      And I stress again that your reflection to Petter's message
      wasn't the fortunate one.

      I hope that you are satisfied with this summary, and I'm
      in favour of stopping further arguing.

---

I wanted to launch this message yesterday evening but - the devil
never sleeps - unfortunately I launched again my previous text, as
I realized this morning. Sorry for that. I also had to re-type my
message because I did delete it unintentionally  :-(

Let me add that in the meantime I have read your message about
Questionnaire Clarifications which is of course an agreeable
continuation of the on-going process.




  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>