|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: Daniel Seagraves <dseagrav@humancapitaldev.com> In-Reply-To: <64BA4A04F13A7A43B289BAE7F07961F50AC92AE2@TN-Mail-1.mansfieldct.net> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:57:31 -0600 To: nanog@nanog.org Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org On Nov 14, 2011, at 8:42 AM, Sam (Walter) Gailey wrote: > "The vendor will provide fiber connectivity between (building A) and = (building B). Vendor will be responsible for all building penetrations = and terminations. When installing the fiber-optic cable the vendor will = follow the appropriate TIA/EIA 568 standards for fiber-optic cabling." >=20 > Any suggestions or examples of language would be very appreciated. = Offlist contact is probably best. Is it appropriate to just say "When installing fiber-optic cable the = vendor will ensure the resulting installation does not suck."? That would seem to me to be the most direct solution to the problem. I = mean, standards are all well and good, but what if the standard sucks? Then you'd be up a creek. Maybe there should be a legal definition of the concept of suck, so that = suckage could be contractually minimized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |