> On Apr 30, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Paul Gilmartin > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 07:37:54 -0500, Edward Gould wrote: > >>> On Apr 25, 2017, at 11:40 PM, Timothy Sipples wrote: >>> >>> Edward Gould wrote: >>>> I can’t talk for others but IBM can’t seem to handle the Internet. >>> >>> Apparently you missed the part where I explicitly described not relying >>> solely on any one entity. And only within the context of extending a >>> generous 90 day window. (If two entities are Internet unreachable for 80+ >>> days, your own recovery likely isn't possible. ;)) And only for those >>> vendors that still insist on keys, something I don't think they should do >>> in the first place. >> >> Timothy: >> ... >> On the surface 90 days seems reasonable but when you look at how IBM has >> reacted to issues in the past in one instance that I know of, I am not so >> sure. >> > When your system is down you may want quicker than 90 days, even if > only to look up a message explanation or a data area map. > > -- gil
I was commenting on the registration number issue, however your point is very valid. Ed ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
