Is anyone working on an RFC for standardized maintenance notifications

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

Hi Robert,

I'm not aware of an RFC for standardized maintenance notifications.

A group of people are currently working on a NANOG BCOP for
maintenance notifications. Many of the fields you list match those
we've identified as critical for inclusion in any maintenance
notification. Most of the discussion takes place via a group on
Facebook: We also
have bi-weekly conference calls. If you (or anyone else) are
interested in participating, contact me off list and I'll get you
caught up on our work so far.


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.


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

Check out: