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
4 months agoRochell
5 months agoKaitlyn
5 months agoHershel
5 months agoBeckie
5 months agoVerdell
5 months agoRashida
5 months agoTerrilyn
5 months agoLavonda
6 months agoGladys
6 months agoLaticia
6 months agoBettyann
6 months agoLisandra
10 months agoBettyann
9 months agoKayleigh
9 months agoJerlene
10 months agoVelda
11 months agoKassandra
11 months agoDexter
9 months agoLeah
10 months agoGlen
10 months agoMelvin
11 months agoEttie
9 months agoShonda
9 months agoLashunda
10 months agoYoulanda
11 months agoLea
10 months agoCruz
10 months agoShawn
11 months agoNana
11 months agoDorethea
12 months agoAileen
12 months agoJacquelyne
12 months ago