Discussion opened with the three alternatives and the concerns regarding E911 and the mixed service period. It is a timing issue in regards to the activation and disconnect of the TN. NPAC activation directs calls to the wireless handset but until the wireline disconnect is performed, the wireline handset still has dial tone. A disconnect is usually performed on the due date +1. The E911 Database reflects the wireline address so if a call were placed from the wireline handset, the PSAP operator would have that address. Ringback however would be to the wireless handset due to the activation in the NPAC. Currently there are issues with wireline to wireline ports when a move is involved and the old SP does not disconnect. The NENA representatives indicated that the same process used for a port with a move should be used for a wireline/wireless port (i.e. a disconnect of the old service provider record and an insert of the new service provider record). NENA recommended that the disconnect and insert be performed on the day of the activation. Coordinating the E911 activity with the activation date is the issue. However, PSAP operators do receive an indicator that marks a call as either wireless or wireline. So some type of indicator would appear if an E911 call was made from the wireless phone. This might be enough to mitigate the problems that could be caused if the disconnect had not been performed and the wireline record was still in the system. This could require education of all E911 operators to recognize the issue and to know where to route emergency services. Extensive discussion was held on the topic. There is still a need to do further research to answer the question as to whether or not the mixed service period creates a significant harm to E911. This will be done with the ongoing assistance of NENA. It was also requested of NENA that they, with the assistance of the LNPA WG where necessary, develop a standardized process that would document the responsibilities of both the old and the new service provider in the occurrence of a wireline to wireless port. This is what will be communicated to NANC in regards to the mixed service issue in this month’s NANC report.

The NENA representatives also requested time to discuss the PIM issue that they have submitted to the LNPA WG. Please refer to the PIM 6 submission regarding the text of the issue and NENA’s proposed solution. The discussion involved a review of the standards that are currently in place for performing disconnects and moves without LNP. The standards for porting were mirrored to that timeframe. Some service providers are meeting the recommended timelines, others are not. The old service provider is responsible for disconnecting the E911 record in a move but there may be issues regarding the old service provider knowing that a move is occurring. Currently the only indicator is the EUMI field on the LSR which indicates that the customer is changing locations. This is not a mandatory field on the LSR currently. Service providers agreed that when they receive an LSR with the EUMI indicator reflecting a move, they do perform the delete instead of just an unlock. The issue was accepted by the LNPA WG and will be discussed further at the next meeting.

• Approve Minutes
• There was a proposal that the Slow Horse Minutes be re-worded and distributed to the group.
• Invalid departure time discussion – (service providers want to see an overlay paragraph) Neustar said they would provide overlay.

• Number Pooling

PIM 5

Donna presented the update to the inadvertent porting documents. These will be distributed with the minutes. There was discussion regarding the definition of an inadvertent porting event. There was discussion regarding the methodology to be used in authorizing the NPAC to perform the port back. It was made clear that the EAF will include a disclaimer stating that the SP authorizing the port takes full responsibility and liability. Neustar is requesting that the person sending the form be a valid user, and that the company that initiates the EAF process should be held fully responsible. The group agrees on this statement. Action Item: Neustar will propose wording for the form that will be used (EAF) and how it will be validated. There is a need to follow the same processes that are used today (list of names, codes).

The following criteria/questions were established for this scenario:

• This condition only occurs when an emergency contact person can not be reached. The LNP Emergency contact list has been used but to no avail.
• Question concerning how service provider should send the EAF after hours to the NPAC. These personnel might be at home and not able to receive a fax or email.
• Provide info over phone (verbal) and then documentation could be sent during business hours. Web entry suggestion (web site form).

There was a need to suspend discussion to allow for the OPWest presentation on PIM 1. This will be continued on tomorrow’s agenda.

PIM 1

OPWest presented the completed flows for discussion. Anthony Zerillo(Sprint) presented on behalf of the OpWest Team. There were other members of the team present to assist with any questions that the WG might have. The LNPA WG would like to express

• These flows do not include wireless entities. Just resellers for wireline. Should be documented as only wireline/wireline.
• The narratives contain wireless references that may need to be deleted.
• Action Item: Clean up NANC/OBF acronyms.
• Box 3 needs to be a square.
• Flows deviate from OBF flows - the OPWest tried to portray the flows as what really happens today in operations.
• OPWest is asking the LNPAWG group to support and hopefully better the process. Since the flows show a deviation from the OBF process it may be necessary for the LNPA WG/OPWest to prepare a presentation for OBF to have OBF alter their process flows.

                                        No Changes

The Slow Horse Committee met on the morning of 4/12/00, in Kansas City.
Following are the Gary Sacra's notes for the meeting; Gary chaired the
meeting in the chair's absence.

                    Statement of Work 17-R2 (data for LSMS Performance Requirement)

The SOW 17-R2 which asks Neustar for data to be used in developing our LSMS
performance requirement should be approved at the April 26th NAPM LLC
meeting. The results should be available to the LLC about 3-4 weeks from
that time. The question as to whether or not the data to be provided by
Neustar is proprietary remains open; the issue will be worked at the May
22nd/23rd NAPM LLC meeting. An objective for that meeting is to also decide
how the data can be used by the Slow Horse team if it is deemed proprietary.
If the data is deemed not proprietary, Slow Horse will have the data prior
to their June meeting. Possibly the Performance Requirement can be
completed at the June LNPA-WG meeting.

                    Retry Timer Change (3.5 to 1x15)

Neustar reported the following based on analyzing the Slow Horse data:

            -- With the exception of the Canadian Region, there was a new entrant(s) in
            the other Regions with a low success rate. After removing them, the
            remaining success rates for the Regions were similar to the 1st try success
            rate when the 3x5 timer was in place.

            -- Based on their observation that the 1x15 success rate was similar to the
            1st try 3x5 success rate (after the new entrants were removed), Neustar
            offered that adding a retry might improve the success rate. However, at
            this time, this cannot be definitively determined.

            -- The success rate does not appear to be time dependent.

Neustar agreed to produce another monthly report, for data through April
20th; the report will be distributed to the Slow Horse team by April 27th.
The team scheduled a conference call for 12:00 PM Eastern on May 4th for
Neustar, LSMS vendors, and any interested Slow Horse team members. The
purpose of the call is to determine how to interpret the data and to present
it in a meaningful manner at the next Slow Horse meeting. Another
objective of the call is to determine whether re-introducing a retry would
Improve the NPAC broadcast success rate. [At the Slow Horse meeting it was
asked that Steve Addicks recalculate and redistribute the summary of the
Slow Horse data after removal of the new entrant SPs that had an extremely
high failure rate. When Steve heard of the request, he noted that he had
not made calculations, but had only summarized the "before" and "after"
report summaries after confirming MCI WorldCom's experience. When next
month's report is prepared and discussed May 4th, an different presentation
method can be used.]

                    Invalid Departure Time

After the retry timer was changed, invalid departure times dropped to near
zero. This could be a possible benefit of the timer change due to a
reduction of NPAC work in performing retries.

                    LSMS Availability Requirement

There was discussion regarding the potential of downtime of indeterminate
causes and how best to reflect that in the calculation, since it may not be
appropriate to exclude or include the downtime in the calculated
availability %. It was agreed that if there was downtime that could not be
definitively attributed to SP or NPAC, then that downtime would be included
in the final calculation but also reflected in a "minus x% margin of error"
type notation.

The Slow Horse team agreed that the Availability Requirement, with today's
changes, was approved and ready to distribute to the full Working Group.
Beth Watkins will add words to the effect that the availability % must
reflect the "union" of LSMS associations if an SP's platform has implemented
multiple live LSMS associations. Beth Watkins will review the changes with
Steve Addicks, who, upon his approval, will forward to the Working Group.
[Steve Addicks subsequently edited the report and sent it to the LNPA-WG
chairs April 17th.]

                    SOA Requirements

Based on internal input from its Operations group, Bell Atlantic proposed
that the Slow Horse Committee extend its charter to also investigate causes
of SOA interface congestion and slow response time for NPAC notifications.
Bell Atlantic asked that the Slow Horse team socialize this proposal within
their Companies and come prepared to the next meeting to discuss. Bell
Atlantic will submit a request to the Slow Horse Chairperson.

                    Slow Horse Report to NANC

The following bullet items were discussed for possible inclusion in the Slow
Horse Report to be given at the next NANC meeting. The final version of the
report will be distributed to the Slow Horse team by Steve Addicks. [The
material below has been edited by Steve.)

            * LSMS Availability Requirement submitted to LNPA-WG 4-17-00

            * Approval of SOW 17-R2 by NAPM LLC anticipated in April; data expected in May

            * No work on the LSMS performance requirement until Neustar data received;
            expected completion of requirement no sooner than June

                    Agenda for Next Meeting

* Status of SOW 17-R2 data for LSMS performance requirement
* Expansion of Charter to encompass SOA requirements
* Retry Timer Impact - additional month's results
* M&P for LSMS Availability Report
* Status Report to NANC

John Nakamura led this discussion. Comments and changes are reflected in his documents. It was decided that Change Management will be done at the next meeting with the purpose to begin review for release 5.

1. Write up from NENA regarding E911 recommendations. NENA to work on standards. Verify this and report to NANC. It appears that a new indicator on the LSR may be needed to indicate that the port is wireline to wireless and vice versa
2. Shorten porting interval: High level discussion as to what the impacted areas would be and what the cost benefit would be to each area. Discussion of industry demand for shorter intervals ( is there one?) other than wireless. Are there areas that could be reviewed for shortening?

1. LSR/ FOC process was identified as one area where improvements could be made. If all companies moved towards electronic interfaces for the LSR FOC exchange, that process could be shortened. However, it also could be more expensive, potentially anti-competitive and cost prohibitive.
2. Another area affected would be batch processes. They might need to be eliminated to allow for faster implementation of 10-digit triggers.
3. Shorten manual order processing times.
4. Pull in the disconnect closer to the disconnect? (Should this be closer to NPAC activation?)
5. Concurrence in the NPAC? is that going to impact timer changes.
6. Coordination of Unbundled loop

See document provided by Marcel. This is the WG’s recommendation in regards to ITP/Regression Testing. This needs to be sent to the LLCs’s as a formal recommendation with a notation that this should be included in the continuing certification process(CCP) and could be enforced through the user agreements.

PimPIM number 5

Further discussion of process and procedures. David Heath is going to verify the level of responsibility for the call that the USA’s will have. Will there be a call back to the NPAC if the issue gets resolved w/out USA making the change? Majority of service providers did not see that as necessary. David Heath will return with the NPAC’s opinion at the next meeting.

On Bridge:

Beth Watkins ATT

Monitoring the network and have noticed and increase in lost packet. They have not seen a link between the lost packet and the implementation of the heartbeat. This is likely just a coincidence. There was an increase in .39 drops per association each day. This is lower than the incidence of drops in other regions. (.55 per association) This data was collected by iffy methods. There was discussion regarding past history of drops per association in the SW region to be compared to drops after the implementation of the keep alive. Ky Quan did not want to go back and review the SW data because he felt the collection methods were suspect. But if the .55 in other regions is suspect, and that is what they are utilizing as a comparison, there is no reason to utilize those methods of data collection to provide a comparison of the before and after. Do not know if this is related to the southwest region’s load or if there was actual benefit from the keep alive. What were the drops prior to the implementation of the keep alive? There also appears to be a benefit to the keep alive maintaining the links and actually creating fewer drops instead of more. The keep alive messages appear to keep the links active and prevent them from going to sleep. There was a recommendation by SUN that the timers on the SUN Platform should be different due to the fact that SUN stated that the keep alive frequency should not be set to 1min but should instead be set to 15min. If the frequency is set to less than 15 then there could be network impacts, and their only resolution would be to reduce the frequency to 15. There should be further information gathered from SUN regarding this issue. Packet loss is occurring. The impact of the packet loss on NANC 301 would be that if there is packet loss in the keep alive message, an abort could occur due to the lost packet being the keep alive message. So an abort could occur in a rare situation where the packet loss occurs in the keep alive message.

Neustar gave a presentation on the Invalid Departure Time issue. That presentation will be attached to the minutes. The decreased number of retries did result in an increased number of aborts of association. NPAC data shows that invalid departure time aborts decreased from 33 in January to 2 in March and CMIP aborts for retries exhausted increased. Several aborts occurred due to SP system problems. There have been some timer changes tested with several service providers (change from a 15 minute timer to a 20 minute timer) with inconclusive results. Rebuild Indexes Neustar has been able to conduct a partial index rebuild

Increased the size of the redo logs on Oracle

Data file relay out Based on current traffic load

Increased number of roll back segments and size. Alleviate large transactions with full table scans during heavy porting activities. Increased the number of roll back segments to improve the data base response time under peak load

Other improvements were

The NPAC was required to implement the 1X15 timer. Service providers can have different re-send timers on the SOA and or LSMS functionality. Then NPAC has noticed that timers have been set to 3X5 3X8 and 3X2. This is supposed to have some affect on the NPAC? Ky is not clear as to what this actually means.

What is the affect of the Timer change. Is there one? The WG asked why can’t we have a presentation on the affect of the timer change, then have a presentation on other things.

Local systems do not support NPAC implemented functionality.

Local systems conducting large queries vs. notification recovery

Local systems having difficulty expecting Bulk Data Down Loads should system go off-line for more than 24 hours.

Local system not being able to handle mass updates audits disconnects

Inefficient business operation and/or lack of knowledge of the LNP industry.

Release 2.0 status. With the implementation of Pooling in CA invalid SSN/DPC data is being sent in to the pooling administrator.

Release 3.0 Status: 4 week delay July 31^st for SP testing ITP is not affected at this time. A conference call is scheduled for tomorrow for potential ASN changes.

Release 4.0 Status: on schedule for SOW release on April 28^th to all LLCs’s.

• Review of Project Plan for 4.0

• LLC Request for Test Flows:

A testing discussion during the LLC meeting resulted in a request from the LLCs’s to the LNPA WG that a flow of the testing process be developed and presented to them. This will be on the agenda for the next LNPA WG meeting. Baseline verbiage from the PE’s will be presented for discussion at that time. The LLC is looking for a relationship between the timeline and the actual testing that is done for a release.

• UPN Meeting

Announcement of the MCI Worldcom/Focal UNP trial. Announcement of NANC’s request for an ad hoc meeting regarding UNP for review as a proposal of UNP as a number conservation method. NANC has requested a readout of the ad hoc meeting at the next NANC meeting.