[rt-users] [ITIL] RE: [at-users] Triggering a new ticket on custom field change

[Ruslan Zakirov]

I don't know about ITIL and what is RFC in this concept :) but I want
to comment  on "(-) no file attachments"

Later RT versions have support for binding transactions to any objects
in RT. You can see it in action via WebUI:
RT->Configuration->Groups-><select group>->History.
Attachments are sticked to transactions, consequently you can add
attachments to any objects. :) Sure, you should code a little to do
that.

On 9/29/06, Tim Wilson <twilson at buffalo.k12.mn.us> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Please forgive the cross-post from the AT list. It seems appropriate
> given the topic. (Orginal thread included below for context.) The
> question below deals with the proper place to store requests for change
> (RFCs) in an RT/Asset Tracker system.
>
> My original plan was to create a new Asset Type in AT for RFCs. Todd
> and Torsten think that using tickets for RFCs make more sense. I'm
> prepared to be convinced either way. Here are some pros and cons as I
> see them.
>
> RFCs in Asset Tracker
> =============
> (+) more true to the ITIL CMDB concept
> (+) easy links between RFCs and other Assets (Configuration Items in
> ITIL-speak)
> (-) no scrip support
> (-) no support for longer form text data
> (-) no file attachments
>
> RFCs as tickets
> =========
> (+) scrip support
> (+) file attachments
> (+) new RFC creation via email or other API
> (-) possible conceptual discontinuity between "tickets" and RFC
>
> I'd appreciate any feedback from anyone else who's considered using RT
> this way.
>
> -Tim

-- 
Best regards, Ruslan.