Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update ixp-member-list.schema.json #30

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

arnoldnipper
Copy link
Contributor

A poc (email address is sufficient) to send error reports to is needed if we want to make efficient use of the IX-F JSON schema

A poc (email address is sufficient) to send error reports to is needed if we want to make efficient use of the IX-F JSON schema
@barryo barryo mentioned this pull request Jul 18, 2019
Merged
@arnoldnipper
Copy link
Contributor Author

We are thinking about scoping fields. While support is public and up to the IX to provide, errors with the schema might be IXPDB internal only and MUST be mandatory. Hence it doesn't matter if in 95% these addresses might be the same. Does that make sense?

@barryo
Copy link
Member

barryo commented Jul 19, 2019

I understand why this seems like a useful data point of have but I don't see it as necessary or wise. First of all, this will be static data jammed into whatever implementation of the JSON export schema and - like most aliases - will go stale quickly. I.e. it's usefulness will degrade (quite quickly I imagine) over time.

Because it's mandatory (and I guess it should be if it's in there), it's going to add an extra step for all users of IXP Manager for example. They'll now need to add a static email address to the configuration file for the PoC. Every previous schema update has required no manual interventions.

I certainly wouldn't put my own direct email in there for INEX and I imagine most people would be the same. Hence it will fall back to the support details already in the schema or already publicly available on the IX's website.

99% of IX's are small enough that contacting the general technical support email will be someone who can help or have a first degree relationship with the right person. For the larger ones, IX-F associations will already have suitable contacts to get around the larger front line support teams.

@arnoldnipper
Copy link
Contributor Author

I understand why this seems like a useful data point of have but I don't see it as necessary or wise.

What do you propose that we have a mechanism to automate import of IX-F JSONs to IXPDB?

@barryo
Copy link
Member

barryo commented Jul 23, 2019

I'm not sure that adding a point of contact to the json data file where its purpose is to be notified if the import of that same file fails is useful.

On the proof of concept we at INEX did for the export directory some time ago, our add your export form required two pieces of information: the json export URL and a point of contact.

@arnoldnipper
Copy link
Contributor Author

Of course, it is useful. However, you don't have to believe it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants