On 19.07 12:41, Emma Bretherick wrote:

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'

Ta muchly (and sorry for the delay in replying!)

Cheers, Emma

I still think the "Minimum-" terms are most descriptive but both work for me. Daniel

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).