[54729] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Scaled Back Cybersecuruty
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Jan 14 15:42:12 2003
To: Pete Kruckenberg <pete@kruckenberg.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:16:45 MST."
<Pine.LNX.4.33.0301141305340.1488-100000@minot.kruckenberg.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:40:01 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--==_Exmh_-739226480P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:16:45 MST, Pete Kruckenberg <pete@kruckenberg.com> said:
> I'm trying to envision an RFP that awards business to one or
> a few network operators, but requires that they interoperate
> effectively with other operators who don't win any of the
> business. I've only got a state-level purchasing
> perspective, but I don't see it happening at any level.
So you award the contract to a provider that has clueful engineers.
How do you mandate/enable/whatever that they be able to interoperate
effectively with the clueless vendor that didn't get the contract?
Remember to address the fact that the clueless vendor would probably
have to expend resources to support somebody else's contract, with no
income to back it up.
In addition, how would you enforce this without getting sued? You award
the contract to Vendor A, they can't interoperate because Vendor B is a
bunch of clueless weenies - now what do you do?
--
Valdis Kletnieks
Computer Systems Senior Engineer
Virginia Tech
--==_Exmh_-739226480P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQE+JHWgcC3lWbTT17ARAqG2AKC9Wnw+np6hVNTgEXmoIH+40sfElQCfQoab
v8ZOVMeKdPpQIzwtOXX2++E=
=KOo7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_-739226480P--
