Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!iuvax!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: munck@community-chest.mitre.org (Bob Munck)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T Crash Statement: The Official Report
Message-ID: <3440@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 1 Feb 90 08:43:02 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Reply-To: munck@mwunix.mitre.org
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 17
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 69, message 6 of 10


 From Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 59 and Risks Digest: 9.63

> Here's AT&T's _official_ report on the Martin Luther King day network
> problems, courtesy of the AT&T Consultant Liason Program.
> ...
> While the software had been rigorously tested in laboratory
> environments before it was introduced, the unique combination of
> events that led to this problem   couldn't be   predicted.
                                    ^^^^^^^^ ^^ 
Don't they mean "wasn't"?  The rest of the report seems (to me) to be
reasonably detailed, well explained, and apparently honest, but this
one little dissemblance ruins the whole thing.  Is there any
justification for the assertion that the prediction was (and is)
_impossible_ in these circumstances?

                         -- Bob Munck, MITRE Corporation, McLean VA