Gotcha, that was probably my case, I let the TAC engineer close it. On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Wes Sisk (wsisk) <ws...@cisco.com> wrote:
> The update that happened on the 20th was an internal system update. > Basically a change happened on a case that was linked to the bug. This > tickled the ‘last-update’ date of the bug. > > As far as fixed versions - I’ll look to *Ryan* on how/when UCCX > populates Integrated-releases field. > > -Wes > > > On Jul 27, 2015, at 9:39 AM, Charles Goldsmith <wo...@justfamily.org> > wrote: > > Ryan/Wes, one last followup question, > https://tools.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCus68524 shows that it was > updated on the 20th, but I don't see a change, other than it may say fixed > now (don't remember before), but it does not show what changed. > > Also, of note, since it does say it's fixed, there are 0 fixed versions > out. Can we get some clarification on it? > > Thanks > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Ryan LaFountain (rlafount) < > rlafo...@cisco.com> wrote: > >> To add to what Wes said: >> >> If you have other UCC products that run on VOS (Finesse, SocialMiner, >> MediaSense, CUIC) you'll see further differences between underlying VOS >> versions between them, UCCX and CUCM. This causes not only a lot of >> confusion in tracking bug fixes in the platform between products but delay >> in integrating fixes like these as Wes has described below. >> >> We are working to address this. The first part is in better tracking of >> bug fixes and security issues in the platform and between products. The >> second part is moving to a common underlying platform version and build >> process for most UCC products. This will greatly speed up our fix inclusion >> and standardize the underlying VOS version in many of our applications >> leading to greater consistency and stability. Without exposing too much >> more, we should see this common VOS in UCC system release 11.0. >> >> HTH. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Ryan LaFountain >> Unified Contact Center >> Cisco Services >> Direct: +1 919 392 9898 >> Hours: M - F 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern Time >> >> From: cisco-voip on behalf of Charles Goldsmith >> Date: Friday, July 10, 2015 at 5:21 PM >> To: "Wes Sisk (wsisk)" >> Cc: voip puck >> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] glibc/ghost vulnerability >> >> Gotcha, thanks for the explanation Wes, that's what I was looking for >> and can explain it to the customer. I'll let the customer know of the >> risks and let them make the decision to upgrade or wait for a minor patch. >> >> Thanks! >> >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 1:58 PM, Wes Sisk (wsisk) <ws...@cisco.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I’ll lead off with: UCCX does a fair amount of work to customize the >>> VOS platform to their needs. As such they don’t pull in updates and fixes >>> as fast as UCM, UC, and CUP. >>> >>> I bet if you check the kernel or RHEL version you will find >>> significant difference and that contributes to the complexity of the fix. >>> admin:show packages active kernel >>> Active Side Package(s): for kernel package(s) >>> kernel-firmware-2.6.32-431.20.3.el6.noarch >>> kernel-2.6.32-431.20.3.el6.x86_64 >>> platform-kernel-tunable-1.0.0.0-1.i386 >>> dracut-kernel-004-336.el6_5.1.noarch >>> >>> RyanL may weigh in with better details. >>> >>> -w >>> >>> On Jul 10, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Charles Goldsmith <wo...@justfamily.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I understand that CUCM and UCCX are both VOS, and that it's probably >>> not the same version, but I don't understand why the platform team for CUCM >>> can give us a minor patch but we can't get the same out of UCCX. >>> >>> I'm sure most of you are like me, and steer clear of .0 releases. >>> There is an old saying, dot Oh, oh no. >>> >>> I'm not comfortable advising a customer to upgrade to the 11.0 release. >>> >>> Would like thoughts on this, and some explanation of the differences >>> of the VOS between CUCM/CUC and UCCX. >>> >>> >> > >
_______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip