From: Price, Jamie (JPrice@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon May 14 2001 - 15:23:05 GMT-3
These NDA discussions are funny. My comments here don't really follow this
thread so dont take offence guys if you think it's directed towards you.
It's not - more the previous NDA one (which I think may have been a case of
translational difficulties rather than intentional policy violation) but you
know - three times now that I've seen, someone has asked a "scenario"
question - without saying "This was on the lab" - and people have jumped up
and down and pointed the finger "ooooooh you're a bad boy - I'm
telling!!!!!"
Personally I don't agree with violating NDA but boy there are a lot of
people that are soooooo worried about others doing it. To be honest I
didn't even know those questions were lab questions until someone else
kicked up a fuss about it. Nice of them to point it out though - thanks
guys if I were the sort that wanted to pass the exam the easiest way
possible then I might just be inclined to focus on those specific threads a
bit (I wonder if I could filter on the keyword "flame"??) :)
If those scenarios aren't pointed out by all the dobbers (sorry - aussie
term - I guess squealers would be a good analogy) wouldn't they simply fade
into the abyss? I think we'd all be hard pressed to remember every thread
on this list in preperation for the exam - even if 50% of them are about
ISDN simulators and redistributing OSPF into IGRP.
I figure let people do what they want. If they're doing wrong then I'm sure
they'll get busted. I'm too busy keeping my head down trying to get
certified to worry about all the evildoers in the world.
Jamie
-----Original Message-----
From: Chuck Larrieu [mailto:chuck@cl.cncdsl.com]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 12:45 PM
To: Leah Lynch; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: NDA
This is an interesting question.
One way to look at it is to consider things from the Lab core topics
perspective. It should be fairly obvious to those who have looked through
Caslow, bootcamp labs, and other study sources, what most of the core topics
are.
Another way to look at it is to consider what it is Cisco is trying to do
with the Lab and its contents. For example, if Cisco wants to test a
candidate's understanding of frame relay configurations and the implications
thereof, how would Cisco do it? If Cisco wanted to test a candidate's
understanding of OSPF, how would Cisco do so? If Cisco wanted to test a
candidate's understanding of classful routing protocols versus classless
routing protocols, how would Cisco do so? And so on down the line.
>From my own perspective, in answer to the question "what study source is
most like the real lab?" the proper answer is "all of them" or some similar
smart ass remark. In answer to the question "is such and such on the real
lab?" the answer is "maybe, maybe not" because one cannot predict certain
specifics.
The big obvious no no is discussing specifics of the particular scenario
one saw when in the test. So it would be NDA if I were to reproduce to
topology I saw. Or if I were to disclose what routing protocols I saw and
what redistribution was required. What is not so obvious is whether or not
comparing what one saw in the Lab to certain specific study materials is
really NDA. As for me, I would rather not take the chance.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Leah
Lynch
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 9:17 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: OT: NDA
I have some questions on the NDA maybe someone here could answer, or if
anyone from the CCIE programs staff is here they could jump in on this. I
read the NDA in the lab and must admit that I was unsure what was meant by
some of the legal wording and I am wondering if someone could clarify what
exactly is NOT allowed. I value my CCIE and do not ever want to get in
danger of coming anywhere close to losing it.
Leah Lynch
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:30:41 GMT-3