Is anyone working on an RFC for standardized maintenance notifications

James Bensley jwbensley at
Fri May 22 12:29:46 UTC 2015

On 12 May 2015 at 16:19, 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

I'm behind you although this would be a BCOP and not an RFC really.

Check out:



More information about the NANOG mailing list