This seems like a tricky one. I'm not sure if I should wait for the retrospective or bring it up right away. Maybe I should encourage the team to work together on this.
I think classification of risk profiles is a good strategy for organizing and presenting risk information to stakeholders in a clear way. That's the option I'm leaning towards.
B and D for sure. Although, I have to admit, the idea of using a service template as a 'post-staging' thing is kind of amusing. Like, 'Oops, forgot to configure this thing. Quick, fire up the service template!'
B and D are the obvious choices here. Although, I have to say, applying a non-identical configuration to multiple CPEs sounds more like a 'custom service' than a 'template'.
Hmm, I'm not sure about C. Applying a non-identical service configuration to multiple CPEs doesn't really fit the definition of a 'template', does it? I'd go with B and D.
B and D seem like the most reasonable options here. I can see how a service template could be used to apply the same QoS configuration to multiple CPEs, and to share an identical service configuration across tenants.
Leonardo
6 months agoRochell
6 months agoKaitlyn
7 months agoHershel
7 months agoBeckie
7 months agoVerdell
7 months agoRashida
7 months agoTerrilyn
7 months agoLavonda
7 months agoGladys
7 months agoLaticia
7 months agoBettyann
7 months agoLisandra
1 year agoBettyann
11 months agoKayleigh
11 months agoJerlene
11 months agoVelda
1 year agoKassandra
1 year agoDexter
11 months agoLeah
12 months agoGlen
12 months agoMelvin
1 year agoEttie
11 months agoShonda
11 months agoLashunda
11 months agoYoulanda
1 year agoLea
11 months agoCruz
1 year agoShawn
1 year agoNana
1 year agoDorethea
1 year agoAileen
1 year agoJacquelyne
1 year ago