Is anyone working on an RFC for standardized maintenance notifications

Bill Woodcock woody at
Thu May 14 11:53:40 UTC 2015

Whoo...  Yeah, we had a WG on that, back around 2000 or so...  The determination was, as I recall, that it didn't need to be part of SNMP, but it kind of went off the rails in an all-things-to-all-people sort of way.  But my memory is vague.  Erik Guttman might remember more clearly.  

Anyway, the idea is a good one, and if you can keep it constrained to a reasonable scope, I think you should find good support. 


> On May 14, 2015, at 06:10, Robert Drake <rdrake at> wrote:
> Like the "Automated Copyright Notice System" ( except I don't think they went through any official standards body besides their own MPAA, or whatever.
> I get circuits from several vendors and get maintenance notifications from them all the time.  Each has a different format and each supplies different details for their maintenance.  Most of the time there are core things that everyone wants and it would be nice if it were automatically readable so automation could be performed (i.e., our NOC gets the email into our ticketing system. It is recognized as being part of an existing maintenance due to maintenance id# (or new, whatever) and fields are automatically populated or updated accordingly.
> If you're uncomfortable with the phrase "automatically populated accordingly" for security reasons then you can replace that with "NOC technician verifies all fields are correct and hits update ticket." or whatever.
> The main fields I think you would need:
> 1.  Company Name
> 2.  Maintenance ID
> 3.  Start Date
> 4.  Expected length
> 5.  Circuits impacted (if known or applicable)
> 6.  Description/Scope of Work (free form)
> 7.  Ticket Number
> 8.  Contact

More information about the NANOG mailing list