LNPA Working Group Meeting Minutes
May 8 - 11

Host MCI Worldcom
3 Ravinia Drive Building #2
Atlanta, GA

Minutes

 

On Conference Call:
Marian Hearn
Linda Godfrey

Slowhorse

Tuesday May 9, 8:30 am – 12:00

The LNPA-WG's Slow Horse subcommittee met May 9, 2000 in Atlanta. The following companies were represented:

Bell Atlantic - Gary Sacra
Bell Canada - Chris Martin
BellSouth - Ron Steen, Ron Grob
Cox Communications - Monica Dahmen
DSET - Nathan Bond
ESI - Ron Stutheit
GTE - Bob Angevine
ESI - Jim Rooks, Michael Panis,
Illuminet - Peggy Lee
Nextlink - Kristen McMillen
Neustar - Marcel Champagne
Sprint - Dave Garner
Tekelec - Colleen Collard
TSE - John Nakamura
Telcordia - John Malyar
USWest - Tommy Thompson
WorldCom - Steve Addicks, Gustavo Hannecke, Denise Best

Retry Timers
The May 4th conference call on this topic was reviewed. There, Neustar reported that they are contacting service providers with low broadcast receipt success rates to analyze the problems. Another month of data on broadcast success rates will be collected (the Neustar Slow Horse Report). Consensus was that while the retry timer change has done no harm, neither has it clearly helped.

Today, BellSouth observed that one negative albeit minor impact of the retry timer change on SOAs, due to the longer waiting period for LSMS acknowledgements, is that some more SVs are in "sending" mode when an LSMS attempts to reconnect to NPAC. This is taken care of in release 4.0 with change order NANC 297 that includes SVs in "sending" status in broadcasts to an LSMS in recovery mode.

 

LSMS Availability Requirement

    M&P for LSMS Availability Report

Neustar will prepare rough draft of M&P based on structure of the availability requirement write-up and distribute to slow horse committee by Thursday June 8th for discussion at next slow horse meeting. Tentatively, the NPAC monthly report will be issued to show three results: 1. unadjusted, 2. adjusted to remove downtime clearly caused by NPAC, and 3. further adjusted to remove all disputed outage. All three results would be displayed in monthly LSMS Availability Report with history retained on each new report. There would be month or so lag for the adjusted values since SPs would have to react to the monthly-unadjusted figures. Report would show both regional results and individual provider results (without identifying the providers, such as done with past "Slow Horse" reports).

 

LSMS Performance Requirement

SOW 17 R2 Status

At its April 26th meeting, the NAPM LLC approved SOW 17 R2. Results are expected to reach the LLC by mid-May. The proprietary nature of the information developed in response to the LLC request remains an open issue.

Expansion of Charter

    SOA Requirements - B.A. proposal

Bell Atlantic asked that we consider expanding the Slow Horse committee charter to include requirements for SOAs. (WorldCom suggested that the group also think about expanding its work to include development of an NPAC-LSMS-SCP interval requirement, but there was no discussion of this otherwise.) Charter expansion will be discussed further at next meeting.

In today's discussion of whether to develop SOA requirements, it was observed that there is natural skew of SOA notifications load toward the incumbent's SOAs because they are involved in most ports.

Sprint urged that a "root cause" analysis of SOA/NPAC message loads be done before assuming that the present performance expectations are inadequate. [The 2 TN/second SOA/NPAC requirement is not a SOA requirement; it is a requirement that the NPAC accept messages from SOA at this rate.]

To build foundation for further SOA availability and performance requirements discussion, the following action items were assigned to Neustar:

 

Report to NANC

 

LNPA Working Group

Attendees:

Name

Company

Name

Company
Charles Ryburn SBC Brian Egbert Sprint PCS
Gary Sacra Bell Atlantic James Grasser Ameritech Cellular
Ron Steen BellSouth H.L. Gowda AT&T
Anna Miller BellSouth Cellular Anne Cummins AT&T Wireless
Mike Panis ESI Colleen Collard Tekelec
Marcel Champagne Lockheed Martin Jim Rooks ESI
Linda Godfrey * Airtouch Cellular Maggie Lee Illuminet
Dave Garner Sprint Steve Addicks Worldcom
John Nakamura TSE Gustavo Hannecke Worldcom
John Malyar Telcordia Marian Hearn* Canadian LNP Cons
Chris Martin Bell Canada Ron Grob Bell South
Monica Dahmen Cox Communications Nathan Bond DSET
Ron Stutheit ESI Warren Potts GST Telecom
Richard Bell GTE Bob Angevine GTE
Gene Perez Intermedia Rick Jones NENA
Kristen McMillan Nextlink Jim Alton SBC
Tommy Thompson US West Pascale Lacroix Videotron
Therese Mooney Global Crossing    
       
       
       
       
       
       

* - via conference call

 

Tuesday May 9, 1:00 – 5:00pm

It was announced that Jim Alton from SBC is Donna’s replacement.

For future meetings:

There was a question concerning changes suggested by Donna for the March Slow horse minutes. WorldCom was unsure of these changes and doesn’t remember what they were.

There was some confusion on the Invalid Departure Time discussion with Ky on the question "This is supposed to have some affect on the NPAC?" We will change to ask "Is this supposed to have some affect on the NPAC?"

 

Subcommittee Reports

Action Item: Neustar needs to answer: When are we getting final migration of files? How will it be communicated? Time frame on "go" or "no go" decision. Need details for migration week.

The LSMS availability requirements document was sent to LNPA WG for review and a decision on what percentage availability we should require and the M&P’s that need to be completed to support the LSMS availability requirements.

Action Item: Neustar has agreed to provide a draft of the M&P.

Group also discussed the need for SOA requirements but have not come to a final agreement on that subject.

2:00 – 5:00

Kristen McMillan from Nextlink gave a quick review of what the OPWest/East Coast changed from the Multi-service Provider Flows/Narratives that were presented last month to the group. The following is a list of those changes:
    1. Box 3 on the Main Provisioning Flow was changed from a hexagon shape to a rectangle for conformity.
    2. Titles on all flows and narratives were shortened.
    3. Timeframes were added on all FOC steps (OSP sends FOC to NSP within 24 hours)
    4. Timeframes were added back in to narratives where times were needed.
    5. All Wireless references were deleted from narratives.
    6. The Loss Alert step was moved in front of the LSR step on flows K: (OPTIONAL) NSP (NLSP) sends loss alert to OSP (OLSP) and L: (Optional) NSP (NNSP)sends Loss Alert to OSP (OLSP)

AT&T and Sprint are still having concerns/issues with the Loss Alert step.

HL discussed his concerns about the Loss Alert and Preorder Requirements step. One concern is on the preorder requirements step/timeframe, does it extend the process?

Sprint would strongly suggest that the LNPA WG compare last month’s flows to this month’s and supports last month’s flows accuracy where the loss alert is concerned. A copy of the revised flows was sent to the LNPA Working Group on May 11. Members are requested to review and be ready to discuss at June meeting.

Wireless to Wireless Process

Anne Cummings from AT&T and Jim Grasser presented the Wireless to Wireless Reseller Process, (see attached file "diagrams reseller.xls")

 

Due to concerns expressed by service providers, the NENA recommendation that had been sent to NANC was withdrawn for more discussion. Bell Atlantic is concerned with making this a requirement but not knowing the cost/time involved. BA, BS, GTE, SPRINT, USWest and AT&T do not want this request to go to NANC to make a standard at this time (not knowing the actual timeframe needed to update processes/systems). Worldcom thinks the 911 unlock/migrate process should be triggered off of actual NPAC activation to help off set the non completed port issue. When you receive broadcast that the numbers are active, you do the 911 unlock/migrate piece.

Most companies are doing the unlock at the completion of disconnect which is a batch process. USWest does not do their batch process 7 days a week. Some batches are done 5 days of the week, some 6 days. We must consider process and system changes and are unsure how quickly it can be done and costs associated with it for the 24-hour timeframe. Action Item: Charles Ryburn (Co-Chair) will tell NANC that we are still investigating at this time and take off the NANC agenda for this month. Action Item: Companies should take internally and find out how long it will take for you to be able to support the NANC standard i.e. days, months, years.

 

Wednesday May 10, 8:30 am - 5 p.m.

8:30am– 12:00pm

John Nakamura led this discussion. Comments and changes are reflected in his documents.

Change Order 306 (GDMO update for WSMSC Package) – due to an incorrectly numbered package at bottom of change order description, SPs (Worldcom) would have to recompile. CMA could easily change but the ripple effect would be huge. Regression testing will be needed. If we change 306 we need to also change 308 (GDMO update for First Port Notification Removal from NPA-NXX-X Object). If you design using this GDMO you will have problems if you expect the notification under this object.

We need to keep NANC 310 pending (open) for discussion with Beth (AT&T). There were some concerns with using only the CST time zone.

Action Item: DSET will find out who is testing next week and make sure they know that there is a recompile that they will need and to regression test for NANC 306 and 308.

Action Item: We need to re-release the GDMO by COB this Friday, May 12th.

We need to finish Business needs for all change orders, prioritize, and then invite LLC’s to our meeting.

In the future, anyone who submits a change order should also submit a business need with that change. CMA will not accept a change order request without a business need.

Action Item: These business needs will be sent to John N. two weeks from today - May 24th. John will distribute on May 26th for review before next meeting.

Here is the list of Change Orders and who will provide the business needs:

  1. NANC 147 – AT&T will submit business need
  2. NANC 299 – leave open until after reviewing 219 and 301(R4).
  3. NANC 300 – Worldcom will submit business need
  4. NANC 310 – AT&T will submit business need
  5. ILL 5 – AT&T will submit business need
  6. ILL 23 – Worldcom will submit business need (if needed)– Data integrity detail report
  7. NANC 87 – John Maylar/Telcordia to submit business need for consistency. If later it is decided there is no need for it we will delete it.
  8. NANC 103 – AT&T will submit business need
  9. NANC 122 – AT&T will submit business need
  10. NANC 151 – Ron/ESI will submit business need
  11. NANC 169 – Telcordia has already provided a business need.
  12. NANC 193 – Matrix has been done on this and is on website. TBD on who will submit business need.
  13. NANC 198 – BA and Sprint withdraw the change order – moves into cancel pending
  14. NANC 204 – Canceled
  15. NANC 235 – Canceled
  16. NANC 246 – ESI feels this is going to cause problems, missing data etc. This will be left on the list. John M. will provide business need.

 

1:00pm – 3:00pm

Invalid Departure Time and 1x15 timer were reported on in the Cross Regional meeting. Invalid Departure Time reported: Incidents by month have dropped dramatically.

Action Item: Neustar will verify if two SPs who have changed their 5-minute settings will return to their 5 minute settings.

ESI - Has anyone ever provided a reason for why a retry would help out on the invalid departure time issue?

We are still unsure whether not performing a retry helps out with the IDT occurrence. We will keep the 1x15 retry timer issue on the agenda for next meeting. The group needs to decide if we want to keep with the 1x15 or if we need to try a 2xn timer. This would be to validate whether a retry would improve success rate. The report states the number of unsuccessful broadcasts from the NPAC. It does not show the Service Provider’s that were taken down by the NPAC because of the heartbeat. Action Item: Neustar to verify: Retry exhaust abort report should only be for LSMS associations not SOA. Does the NPAC broadcast to a SP that they know is down?

 

Worldcom passed out document that has been drafted in the Slow Horse Committee for the LNPA WG to review. The document was done with two main questions in mind: What percent would we require for LSMS availability? 99.9 or 89.9%. and What are specific M&P’s?

Sprint suggested that we accept the requirement then wait until reports are complete with actuals (2001) and then decide on what percentage would be aggressive but reasonable. Group decided that this is a good suggestion to follow.

The working group will give final approval to the report in the June meeting. It will be sent to NANC for discussion in the June NANC meeting. See attached file "Slowhorse 5-10-00 Availability Requirement.doc" for the final version to be discussed.

3:00pm – 5:00pm

PIM 5 – There were no updates from Neustar on their action items from last month.

Charles Ryburn gave report on PIM 5 to NANC and the chairman of NANC came back with an idea that the FCC has thought about: Charging (opposing fines) for inadvertent porting in the industry. Their issue is more with slamming than inadvertent porting. If this is brought up again at the NANC meeting, the co-chairs will tell them that we don’t feel that the slamming and inadvertent porting issues are the same.

Charles will get completed document on PIM 5 for our review from Donna Navickas.

PIM 7 – Rebecca Heimbach from ICG has opened a new PIM. NAPM is handling right now and feels they may be able to give a solution at the time the PIM is discussion next month.

NANC would like to know more about the PIM issues and change orders. It was asked of us to come up with a way to better notify the industry when we resolve a PIM issue.

 

Dave Garner (Sprint) participated in the LLC meeting as PE and discussed testing. The LLC members wanted a high level overview of different testing, in what sequence it was performed and who participates in the testing. The group reviewed the matrix that Dave passed out. A definition was provided to the LLC’s on interoperability and regression testing.

 

Thursday May 11, 8:00 am – 12 noon

8:00am – 9:30am

Gary was asked to review these guidelines and see if there were any discrepancies. He found in the INC guidelines on page 36 a timeframe issue. The guidelines say that a Service Provider has the ability to go to the PA for Expedited 1000 blocks and the first timeframe it lists is legitimate but then the effective date of 12 days after first port doesn’t specify business or calendar days. Should be a minimum of 8 business days regardless of first port or not. Broken down it is 5 days after first port notification and 3 days to get –X table ready. Group agreed. That is the only discrepancy found. Gary will provide this information to the Bell Atlantic INC representative.

9:30am – 10:30am

Shortening of Porting Interval: Areas of concern and investigation

 

AT&T wireless noted the number of porting of Wireline customers is around 6 – 6.5 million since the start of porting. Wireless has around 93 million as a customer base and around 2% churn rate a month. They are looking at far more porting activity than wireline. Thus in the wireless industry there is even a greater need for automated systems. The group agrees to an automated mechanism for porting, but some of the carriers that don’t agree, and that is a problem. Worldcom: Are we at a point of actually issuing cost studies? Not yet.

The FCC is looking at if they did actually issue an order would it be beneficial to the industry?

Sprint wanted to clarify: Current day porting Wireline to Wireline is what we are looking at to see if we can shorten the porting interval. Sprint wanted to know if there has actually been a study done with customers etc. that shows the need. Action Item: Companies should at least look internally and see what affects shortening of porting intervals would cause them.

Mixed Service Condition – 911 Concerns – NENA

Since last month, we have received additional information regarding a
technical issue, and feedback from some of the 9-1-1 community regarding an
operational issue, both of which involve the mixed service time frame.

The mixed service interval and its 9-1-1 impacts require additional study and
work. I cannot at this time recommend a NENA national statement without
additional information from service providers and clarification from the FCC.

Issue 1-The wrong information may display when a 9-1-1 call is placed to a
public safety answering point dependent upon the method being used to deliver
information required under FCC wireless 9-1-1 rules.

At least one major carrier (SBC) is currently using a wireless 9-1-1 phase 1
method that inserts a temporary record in the 9-1-1 ALI (automatic location
identification) database whenever a wireless/cellular 9-1-1 call is placed.
This record can stay for up to 4 ½ hours.

During this time span if a 9-1-1 call is placed on a wireline phone that has
the same phone number (mixed service interval), the wireless 9-1-1 ALI record
will display at the 9-1-1 public safety answering point. In phase 1
wireless 9-1-1, this will include the call back number and the cell site/face
information. It will identify the call as wireless, even though it was placed
on a wireline phone.

If the porting process has completed (NPAC activation), no callback to the
wireline phone and no address information will be displayed. This would be
unacceptable for a "no voice contact and/or disconnect" 9-1-1 call. We would
also be unable to identify the wireline carrier after the NPAC activation so,
would not know which one to call to get the missing address information.

We do not know if this process is in place with any other service providers
in the country. Others represented on NENA network/wireless committees have
not indicated there is a problem with their method of wireless 9-1-1 phase 1
compliance, however, it should be pointed out that not all carriers providing
the service are represented on the committees.

Issue 2-Wireline to wireless porting is covered under the FCC LNP orders.
NENA will be seeking further clarification from the FCC as to whether those
orders require any additional information (such as address) of porting
customers, switching local residential service from wireline to wireless.

An informal poll was conducted recently among 9-1-1 public safety answering
point representatives nationally and one in Illinois (at a special Illinois
meeting covering wireless 9-1-1 implementation following passage late last
year of our state legislation for it).

Both polls asked that if a residential customer ported a local phone number
from a wireline to wireless carrier, what was important to be received at the
9-1-1 public safety answering point. The choices offered were (1) address was
at least as important as phase 1 (call back and cell site/face), (2) phase 1
information was most important but address would be helpful), (3) phase 1
information only, no address, or (4) no opinion.

In both polls, more than 85 per cent responded that they favored (1) address
being at least as important as phase 1 (call back and cell site/face).
Combined with choice (2), the total averaged approximately 95 per cent.

Dependent upon FCC response and wireless industry actions, having the address
also delivered on a wireless 9-1-1 local call (when porting from wireline
involved) may alleviate issue #1 or cause a rewrite of the software used so
that issue #1 is eliminated.

Issue 3-A 9-1-1 test plan needs to be prepared and required covering the
mixed interval wireline-wireless porting time period. The tests should be
done in each area of the country where different software/hardware is being
used to deliver wireless 9-1-1 information to public safety answering points
and also, different software/hardware is being used to deliver wireline 9-1-1
information to PSAPs.

It would appear that a number of carriers don't think there are technical
problems regarding the mixed service interval, however, it is of concern that
none are sure there are no technical problems with their software/hardware
used for wireless 9-1-1 implementation and the possible mix during the mixed
service interval with their software/hardware used for wireline 9-1-1
implementation.

 

 

Next Meetings … June 12 – 15, Chicago, IL – SBC Host

neustarlogo_s.gif (1902 bytes)

 

Send mail to Web Content with questions or comments about this web site.

Copyright © 1999, 2000 Neustar, Inc.
Last modified: June 06, 2000