From: Scott Morris (smorris@ipexpert.com)
Date: Sat Apr 14 2007 - 10:43:57 ART
Is there a point in noting to the public that a reply was private?
As for the working configurations and such, you need to keep in mind that
many things are not just "one rule" or "one method" to solve. By that, your
solution may be perfectly functional, but if it doesn't do what, or ALL of
what they ask (or breaks something else previously done), then it's not
really correct, is it?
THAT is one of the hardest things that candidates have with the exams and
testing things. Many people have discussed that over the years, and
everyone can debate working vs. non-working solutions all day long, but
without violating NDA there's no way to REALLY be sure that what one
candidate did (while working) was accurate per all of the rules in their
workbook.
The hard parts of life.
Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, JNCIE
#153, CISSP, et al.
CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-J
IPexpert VP - Curriculum Development
IPexpert Sr. Technical Instructor
smorris@ipexpert.com
http://www.ipexpert.com
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Darby Weaver
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 12:45 AM
To: Ryan
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Getting medieval this weekend - almost time to confirm 3rd
attempt.
Replied privately.
--- Ryan <ryan95842@gmail.com> wrote:
> Your comment about quota's got me thinking...a little on the
> conspiracy side, maybe...
>
> Let's assume their is a quota system for a moment, and they need to
> fail some people. So how do you fail some one with a working
> configuration?
>
> Let's take NTP as an example (since I was reading the Doc CD on it
> today) and the always questioned, "over configuration".
>
> The question of over configuration has been brought up numerous times
> and the general consensus is that it won't hurt you.
> UNLESS their is a quota
> system!!!!
>
> So for an example, let's say you were asked to configure NTP peers.
> Simple enough. But let's say you "over config" and configure the 'ntp
> peer x.x.x.x'
> command for each peer. Sure it will work, but it is also not fully
> correct since you only need to configure the peering on one router. So
> a Proctor grading could then say, "hmmm...this 'extra'
> configuration demonstrates they
> do not clearly understand this technology. Minus 2 points".
>
> Oh look! You just failed for over configuration even though you had a
> working config...
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> -Ryan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 4/13/07, Darby Weaver <darbyweaver@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Basically a sleepless weekend. With a lot of
> review
> > and soul-searching - not to mention UNIVERCD searching.
> >
> > But the goal is not only to assess but to ensure optimal
> > performancce under adverse conditions as
> well.
> >
> >
> > --- Scott Morris <swm@emanon.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Or there will be holes/singes in the exam when
> he's
> > > done. :)
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> > > [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of jslauer@hotmail.com
> > > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 9:02 PM
> > > To: Darby Weaver; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: Re: Getting medieval this weekend -
> almost
> > > time to confirm 3rd
> > > attempt.
> > >
> > > if your getting medieval does that mean you're
> going
> > > to flog yourself? :)
> > >
> > >
> > > J
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Darby Weaver" <darbyweaver@yahoo.com>
> > > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 8:29 PM
> > > Subject: Getting medieval this weekend - almost
> time
> > > to confirm 3rd attempt.
> > >
> > > > So...
> > > >
> > > > Training dollars are down and tide is high...
> > > >
> > > > 3 IE Mock Labs in the about 40 hours span of
> > > time...
> > > > (I'll be tired and worn out - been this way on
> > > each of my previous lab
> > > > attempts - got to simulate exhaustion too).
> > > >
> > > > 2 more already scheduled for next weekend.
> > > >
> > > > And one more to go.
> > > >
> > > > 2 CCIE Accessors are in the approval process.
> > > >
> > > > And I have a few other labs I am reviewing as
> > > well.
> > > >
> > > > Basically, I should have a decent idea of
> where
> > > most weaknesses are
> > > > and if I have or have not covered them
> properly.
> > > >
> > > > So here I go again...
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 01 2007 - 08:28:35 ART