Re: [TOOLS-DEVELOPMENT] [Tools-discuss] Server Transition Briefing

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

John Levine <[e-mail]> wrote:
    > In article <9645.1585850822@localhost> you write:
    >> I think that many others, while enthusiastic about not duplicating effort,
    >> are concerned about loss of control, in particular, inability to deploy our
    >> specifications early, and to do it properly, rather than "popularily"

    > It's more than that, it's also tradeoffs of time and technical risk.
    > As I recall, we were talking about a commercial monitor service we
    > could deploy now vs one we might get someone to write later, perhaps
    > much later.

I don't think that there was much opposition to the proposed monitoring service.
(status.io won't solve all monitoring problems, but it is a good step)

It was more about how monolithic our datatracker is, and why we aren't
leveraging a more distributed architecture that incorporates other systems.
Why we aren't container and kubernetes and cloud-bursting...

    > When we depend on software where the number of people who know it well
    > enough to maintain it can be counted on one's thumbs, that's a risk,
    > and one that I think we need to balance against the risk of using
    > someone else's less dogfoody commercial package.

I don't know if we have the financial leverage to actually get much.
**We can't even get Webex to dogfood IPv6** but I think that we should
explore what we can get.

--
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-