Howard, Congrats on the new book. The title sounds like an interesting read, who is publishing it?
Brian On Sun, 18 Nov 2001, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote: > "Dennis" pretty well expressed my position on > answering questions. The questions I'm most likely to answer on the > group are ones that deal with interpretation of protocol or design > nuances -- frankly, when there may or may not be an exact answer even > among experts. Another kind that I'll tend to comment on are things > where there are subtle things (especially the interaction of some > subtle things) like the current thread on OSPF load balancing. > > When the question, in my opinion, can fairly easily be answered with > a search on CCO or in the Groupstudy archives, I may or may not > comment. I'm most likely to comment, in a non-confrontational way, > that I've already answered this question in the archives. > > There are a couple of categories where I'm quite unlikely to answer, > but I do sometimes grit my teeth not to say something sarcastic. One > is where the question starts out "my customer wants...", which is > often just the sort of thing that consultants are paid for. Even > worse are some of the discussions where the customer wants > multihoming, complex BGP (_not_ the same thing), etc., where someone > who doesn't have experience can disrupt significant parts of the > Internet. > > Long ago and far away, the University of Maryland had a locally > developed programming language called RALPH (Re-entrant Algorithmic > Language Processor H*--a footnote explained the H was there to be > cute). In the RALPH documentation, there was a single-paragraph > description of a particular feature, which included the warning "if > you don't understand, from this paragraph alone, why using this > feature is dangerous, don't use it. Get expert help." Same sort of > thing. I may give a couple of paragraphs about how, in the real > world, you deal with some global routing issue, but if the questioner > doesn't get it from those answers, there's too much background needed > to solve it quickly. > > Don't get me wrong -- I am quite willing to _ask_ questions in the > appropriate forum, and also have my quality checked by others. But > I've paid my dues and shown the attitude that I can ask Sue Hares, > Yakov Rekhter, or Tony Li a BGP question, Dave Katz or Tony an ISIS > question, John Moy an OSPF question, etc. But it took me years to > get to a point where I "earned my bones" and could do that. I have a > moral obligation to answer technical questions on RFCs and Internet > Drafts I've written or coauthored -- they are called Requests for > Comments for (an admittedly historic) reason! > > I've just finished a book "Building Service Provider Networks," which > deals with the design of networks using BGP, MPLS, L2TP, etc., rather > than how to configure them (it should be out early next year). > Annlee Hines was my principal reviewer, and believe me, I listened > carefully when she said something wasn't clear. But I didn't ask her > to do my work for me. > > Howard > > > >No one needs a suit of armor to join a discussion. They just need to join > >it intelligently. That's why it's recommended in the faq to lurk for awhile > >when you're a newbie before jumping in. > > > >If someone posts a questions saying... hey... I searched on Cisco and here > >and there and I just don't get this... help me understand... no one anywhere > >would bash them for trying and not understanding. Now if someone posts a > >question such as how do I recover a password on a 2500, it's obvious they > >made no effort as this can be found on Cisco's site in less time than it > >took to ask the question. But perhaps this is the type of "intelligent" > >discussion you are referring to and would like to see more of in this group. > >Well I would argue that by promoting that you are devaluing this group, it's > >users, and the truely "intelligent" discussions that go on here. That's > >just what we all need is to sort through 30 messages a day of how do I turn > >on my router, what is this ethernet thingy on my rooter, what does ram stand > >for? > > > >Too many people treat this group as the free consulting group and the first > >place to look for answers and I do not think that should be encouraged. > >One's own research should be the first place and the knowledgeable people of > >this group (which I do NOT claim to be one) should asked when that fails. > > > >-- > > > >-=Repy to group only... no personal=- > > > >""Jim McDowell"" wrote in message > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > >> You have my vote on that. I think there would be many more thoughtful > >> discussions if most average folks didn't feel like they need to put on a > >> suit of armor just to join the discussion. But alas...it seems to be > that > >> way in every discussion group. > >> > >> > >> > >> >Carrol,. I agree with you that some would learn slower or not at all, > but > >I > >> >think you are incorrect on your devaluation of respect. It's easy to say > >> >that medicine tastes bad but is necessary. But I propose to the group > >that > >> >the damage is more than the help. There are many lurkers that would > >surely > >> >participate more and in turn learn more through being active rather than > >> >just lurking if indeed they could trust that they would not be > humiliated > >> if > >> >one of their questions was not up to par. So, although a demeaning > >message > >> >may be given to one of the few deserving participants, it will cause > many > >> >participants not to grow as fast as they would if they were actively > >> >conversing. > >> >I really don't think you're argument holds water because of that. > Besides > >> >the same finite resource you refer to are wasted with the rant as with > >the > >> >question. If the resources are the reason for the rant, then the rant is > >> >self defeating. > >> > > >> >Larry Puckette > >> >Network Analyst CCNA,MCP,LANCP > >> >Temple Inland > >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> >512/434-1838 I'm buying / selling used CISCO gear!! email me for a quote Brian Feeny, CCIE #8036 Netjam, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netjam.net VISA/MC/AMEX/COD phone: 318-212-0245 30 day warranty fax: 318-212-0246 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=26647&t=26647 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
