SIRCE - again
- Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 18:48:19 +0100
- Alternate-recipient: Allowed
- X400-content-type: P2-1984 (2)
- X400-mts-identifier: [/PRMD=hungarnet/ADMD=0/C=hu/;ELLA-36-961127184819@localhost.]
- X400-originator: h48bal@localhost
- X400-received: by /PRMD=surf/ADMD=400net/C=nl/; Relayed; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 18:48:35 +0100
- X400-received: by mta relay.surfnet.nl in /PRMD=surf/ADMD=400net/C=nl/; Relayed; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 18:48:35 +0100
- X400-received: by /PRMD=hungarnet/ADMD=0/C=HU/; Relayed; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 18:48:20 +0100
- X400-received: by /PRMD=hungarnet/ADMD=0/C=hu/; Relayed; Wed, 27 Nov 1996 18:48:19 +0100
- X400-recipients: non-disclosure:;
I have studied all the SIRCE-related materials (at least I think that
all of them did reach me):
- your Tue, 05 Nov 1996 13:23:44 +0100 message
- the RIPE-149 document
- the RIPE-150 document
- your Thu, 14 Nov 1996 16:36:22 +0100 message
- your reports about the collected commitments
- RIPE NCC Feedback Dept's Tue, 26 Nov 1996 16:52:09 +0100 message
- Petter Kongshaug's message of Wed, 27 Nov 1996 07:28:51 +0100
- your Wed, 27 Nov 1996 09:27:30 +0100 message reflecting Petter's one
I'm a bit disturbed by the full process.
On one hand, the RIPE NCC did prepare a well elaborated project plan
(as it is common with any RIPE NCC activities).
However, on the other hand, nothing was mentioned about the background
situation which Petter is talking about.
While potential supporters are well informed about the plans of the
RIPE NCC, they are mislead by the presentation: most of them even don't
know about the full picture.
An only note is touching the question in its entirety, namely by your
Thu, 14 Nov 1996 16:36:22 +0100 message:
> Q: Am I bound to my commitment if TERENA decides to execute SIRCE
> differently than proposed in ripe-150?
> A: No. The commitment is specifically for the project proposed in
> ripe-150. If a different proposal is preferred by TERENA, we will
> provide information about it and it is up to you to decide whether you
> want to get involved.
While I express the interest of HUNGARNET in a Europe-wide CERT
coordination, I have to emphasize that I fully support Petter's
> TERENA has set up a CERT TAG to evaluate candidates for a European
> CERT. UNINETT ... wait to see the prefered candidate, and
> do not want to conclude on CIRCE before the evaluation is done.
(I did intentionally omit that part of Petter's message saying that
> ... UNINETT is part of this TAG ...
because this fact is irrelevant regarding UNINETT's intentions but
underlines only the fact that an ISP, being fortunate enough to know
about the background situation, doesn't want to make any commitment
before TERENA evaluates the candidates, including the RIPE NCC.)
In view of the above comments, let me express HUNGARNET's intention to
subscribe the prospective European CERT coordination. If the selected
coordinator will be the RIPE NCC (in the frameworks of the planned SIRCE
project), HUNGARNET will be ready to commit ECU 500. If the selected
coordinator will be a different organization, HUNGARNET will probably
join the CERT coordination activity selected by TERENA.
In addition, let me mention that Petter's message was correct with respect
to the questionnaire, too:
> Sorry for not using your form, but i did not find any suitable statements.
A suitable statement could have been eg.
%STJ We wait for a decision made by TERENA about European CERT
(or something similar). Without such an option, Petter couldn't find any
suitable statement, indeed, because only this kind of statement could
express suitably why UNINETT didn't commit to SIRCE before your deadline.
Finally, I don't know why the amount of commitments is relatively low. If
ISPs didn't react because they share Petter's view (and mine, too), that's
ok. If the reason is lack of interest in CERT coordination, in general,
that's worse. Hopefully at the end, a really Europe-wide coverage of CERT
coordination will be achieved - either by SIRCE or by some other project.
Regards and best wishes,