[ris-int] Re: We need your fb again ;)

Hi,

Catching up on email.

>
> Hey,
>
> We still prefer our last suggestions:
>
> Error Time Limit
> Error Event Count
>
> We think they make a little more sense - at least to us!
>
> However in case you hate them, out of your suggestions we prefer:
>
> 'Min-Event-Duration' and 'Min-Event-Count'

I don't like Min-Event-Duration as it will be shortened to MED and that is
already a known mnemonic in the BGP world.  Also MED and MEC look very
similar.

That said, I think we shouldn't spend too much time on the names but
rather on the explanation.  If ETL and EEC, or MED and MEC for that
matter, are explained properly then people should be able to understand
what we mean by them in the context of this service.  And that is the most
important thing.

Looking at the description, it might benefit from a drawing to illustrate
the alarms:

         A 1    W 1
          |      |
 Time ----------------------------------------------->
         t=1    t=2             t=1+ETL

         A 1                         W 1
          |                           |
 Time ----------------------------------------------->
         t=1           t=1+ETL

5 minutes of xfig makes it clear for me.  (And probably as clear as mud to
the rest of the universe :-)

Henk




>
> Ta muchly (and sorry for the delay in replying!)
>
> Cheers,
> Emma
>
> At 14:11 06/07/2004 +0200, Matthew Williams wrote:
> >Hi Comms,
> >
> >Please see explanations here: http://www.ripe.net/ris/myasngls.html#50
> >
> >And then think about alternative terms for below:
> >
> >*Hold Down Time
> >*Hold Down Event:
> >
> >'Min-Event-Duration' and 'Min-Event-Count' are our current candidates.
> >
> >*Time To Live:
> >
> >We have two lines of thought here. One relates to 'detection' of events
> >building up to an alarm entry in the email sent to the user,
> >while the other follows the line of 'suppression' of further entries once
> >the first entry has been triggered (based on exactly the
> >same events). If we go along with the second concept, then this is a
> >maximum time interval. In the first case, we're talking about a
> >fixed 'window' (time interval). I hope all that made sense ;)
> >
> >Here come some suggestions: "Event-count Window", "Alarm-Suppress-Time",
> >"Max-suppress-time", "Event-Suppress-Time',
> >"max-detect-window", "alarm-detect-window"... Etc etc... We could go on
> >forever and ever. The question is: What works for you?
> >
> >The beta is more or less ready so we need to get this one out of the way
> >once and for all... ;)
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Matthew
> >
> >  ---
> > > Matthew Williams (MW243-RIPE)
> > > Customer Liaison Engineer
> > > RIPE NCC - http://www.ripe.net/np/
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> Emma Bretherick
> RIPE NCC
> http://www.ripe.net/
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Uijterwaal                           Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net
RIPE Network Coordination Centre          http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk
P.O.Box 10096          Singel 258         Phone: +31.20.5354414
1001 EB Amsterdam      1016 AB Amsterdam  Fax: +31.20.5354445
The Netherlands        The Netherlands    Mobile: +31.6.55861746
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Process and Procedure are the last hiding place of people without the wit
and wisdom to do their job properly.                          (David Brent).