Stephen Baxter wrote: >This sort of leaves it to ADNA to take the DNA's word for it that they >will do a good job. I suppose this comes down to the market force thing >again, if the X DNA promises a certain quality level then the customers >should be able to vote with their feet if they do not meet that level. How about the case where there is only one DNA and it is not economical for more than one DNA because the market segment is too small? One possibility is ADNA could waive the DNA fee in this case to encourage competition? Otherwise we will need a way to ensure the quality. On the other quality question Richard Archer wrote: >Section 4 could become: > >4. Must have permanent connection to the Internet maintained such that the >DNA's name server can respond to DNS queries from munnari.oz.au with a >packet return time not exceeding 300 milliseconds. How about adding "or as advised by ADNA from time to time." This will give ADNA the responsibility of overseeing the overall QoS, but I don't see that as a problem. You might like to also add some % of the time that it needs to meet this since it would not be not possible to meet it all the time. 90% 95% 99%? --- Panther (as in Pinkboard Panther) <panther§pinkboard.com.au> Larry Singer <larrys§pinkboard.com.au> Larry Singer <larry§wright.com.au> http://www.pinkboard.com.au/~panther/ Sending junk email to my addresses will result in rude messages. "That kind of guy."Received on Tue Jul 22 1997 - 11:36:15 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:02 UTC