Copyright © 1999
Neustar, Inc.
Last modified: February 03, 2000
LNPA Working Group Meeting Schedule
January 10-13
Las Vegas, NV
Host Nextlink
LNPA Working Group
Tuesday 1/11 8:30 – 5:00pm
Conference Bridge: 1-800-247-9976
· Introductions and Agenda Review
On Bridge:
Kayla Sharbough TSE
Brent Struthers Neustar
· Approve minutes of previous meeting.
There was clarification to the PIM issue 003 solution that was proposed by Donna Navickas. It has been recorded in the minutes and they will be re-distributed.
Charles presented the NANC release form that was distributed by Jeannie Grimes. It stated that "Each NANC member, alternate, working group member or individuals participating on an IMG or subcommittee is requested to provide a signed copy of the NANC Participant Certification to the FCC's Designated Federal Officer, Diane Griffin Harmon at or before the January 18-19, 2000, NANC meeting." When speaking to Diane Harmon, Charles was informed that all participants in the WG should complete this form and submit it to NANC. There was considerable discussion regarding the legal ramifications of the document and what information should be provided on the document. Charles distributed the information that he received from Ms. Harmon to the WG. Each member of the working group is to review and individually respond to the request.
There was discussion of the JIP parameter and its usage among both wireline and wireless carriers in relation to LNP. Wireless intends to write a liaison letter to the wireless standards groups TR45.2 and TS1.6 indicating the wireless requirement for usage of the JIP parameter in the wireless LNP solution thus giving IXC carriers the ability to correctly identify the home switch of the ported call.
CTIA Meeting for wireline to wireline communication process
Test Plant sub committee is having a meeting Feb 29th and March 1st in Tampa to discuss the draft integrated test plan that they have prepared. Wireline testing SME’s are encouraged to attend. Anne requested that Charles distribute the test plan and meeting logistics to the Working
Group.
Please see WNPSC minutes for more detail.
Slow Horse (Steve Addicks)
The LSMS availability requirement made progress in regards to its development. The Performance requirement is still open due to the peak requirement question. Parties who are interested in that information are requested to send their questions to Steve so that he can submit a new request through the LLC.
3x5 timer issue – If we change the timer to a 1x15 that increases the chances that a TN will be in a sending status for a longer period (up to 15 minutes) and that a system in recovery will not recover that TN until release 4.0. (Currently a system in recovery cannot recover a TN in a sending status). That problem is being resolved by 4.0. The current issue revolves around the implication that a longer period of sending could increase the number of TN’s that are not recovered by systems in recovery. Those TN’s would be partially failed by the NPAC. The assumption is that by allowing the timer to be extended to 15 minutes with one message sent, there will be fewer partial failures. Fewer partial failures should result in fewer systems in recovery during a 15 timer period. It is being recommended that the timers be changed on both the SOA and LSMS sides. In reference to that, members of the WG noted that up to this point we have been discussing the LSMS only. After further discussion, there would be no impact on a SOA other than not having a message sent three times. The conclusion reached was that the LNPA WG recommend to the LLC’s that the 3x5 timer be changed to a 1x15 timer in the seven US regions. The Canadian region has not reached a decision as to what type of a change if any in the 3x5 timer would be of most benefit to that region. The suggested change will be sent to the LLC meeting in January and then socialized at the Cross Regional Meeting. The co-chairs will send an official notice to the LLCs and copy the PE’s reflecting this recommendation and its implementation during the February NPAC maintenance window. GTE requested that it be reflected in the minutes, that they are opposed to any change to the timer due to the fact that there is no evidence that this will decrease the slow horse problem.
The pooling sub-committee met in December to discuss the 3.0 test plan and testing strategy. There will be two sets of test cases, a primary and a supplemental test plan. The primary will be required of all service providers and the supplemental test plan will be for test cases that affect the NPAC solely so that Neustar will perform those test cases to certify those aspects of 3.0. Neustar has an action item to evaluate the supplemental test plan and determine if they are able to perform and certify the plan. There are also issues revolving around the testing strategy, how many service providers can test at one time, how many tests can be performed concurrently. This is being evaluated to tighten up the testing schedule and provide the best usage of time and resources. There will be a meeting Feb 1st – 4th in Chicago to review timeframes and the testing strategies on the 1st – 3rd and dedicate the 4th to the Integrated FRS review. There will also be a review of the Neustar action item. The testing strategy will be reported to the LLC’s so that the rollout schedule can be determined for release 3.0. There was concern raised about the data migration from 1.4 to 3.0. It was decided to add data migration to the agenda for the February meeting. Any impact of data migration to the rollout schedule will be discussed and conveyed to the LLC’s.
0001
Shelly Shaw provided an update to the status of the proposed flows that the OpWest team is developing to present to the WG. The OpWest team has committed to having the flows ready to present to the WG at the March WG meeting.
0002
Shelly Shaw presented a rough draft of the Service Provider Maintenance Window definition. This was worked with the entire group. The third portion of the original draft requirements was deemed to be a separate issue and should be submitted as an individual PIM issue. This will be done prior to the next WG meeting. She committed to having a draft completed and distributed to the group prior to the end of the WG meeting. Based on consensus of the WG this document will be presented at the Cross-Regional for implementation.
0003
Upon review of the CBT issue, it was determined that the reason for the port was due to the standard NPAC procedures and porting guidelines functioning as they were designed. A communication issue between the two companies caused the problem. There was not a violation of the standard procedures. This issue will be closed and a letter will be sent to the submitter. The WG would recommend that the submitter take any further difficulties of this nature to the appropriate state regulatory bodies or if they choose to, propose a change order to alter the standard procedures. It is also recommended that CBT keep on eye on PIM 005 in regards to alternative solutions.
0004
David Taylor of SBC presented this issue at the last WG. At this meeting, he brought to the attention of the WG a clause in a draft INC pooling guideline (8.2.5 dated 12/99) that would allow a block to be ineligible for donation if the technical issues involved in donating the block were prohibitive. Through discussion, it was determined that while packet service could not be ported, a TN assigned to packet service was portable and could be intra-SP ported to the serving switch without detriment to the packet service. Since this is the process for all contaminated TN’s in blocks to be donated, this would not be a factor that would prohibit the block from donation. It is the WG’s opinion that packet service would not meet the definition in the INC guidelines. This issue will be closed. A letter will be sent to the submitter and to INC explaining the issue and our interpretation of the pooling guidelines. If the submitter does not agree with the WG’s decision in this matter, this can be escalated as shown in the PIM process guidelines.
0005
At the December meeting, Donna Navickas presented supporting information regarding PIM 003. The information that she presented involved similar but not identical issues with porting. Due to the differences in the situations, it was recommended that her information be submitted and accepted as PIM issue number 0005. She had proposed a solution at the last meeting that would entail the Service Provider from whom the TN was ported in error to notify the NPAC and have the NPAC port the number back after attempts by the old service provider to contact the new service provider had failed. This would be based on the Service Provider formally requesting the NPAC to perform this service; and to provide documentation upon request that the end user had been ported in error, was out of service and that the port back could not be accomplished in a timely manner without NPAC assistance. She was requested to flesh out her proposal and present it at the next WG meeting.
John Mallyar was to work on the definition and present at this meeting. He has requested this be postponed until later in the meeting. It is now later in the meeting. John presented a modification to the existing backward compatibility definition to allow for sunset of functionality. This modification will be distributed to the WG for review and further discussion at the next meeting.
This portion of the meeting was led by John Nakamura. Comments and changes are reflected in his documents.
Wednesday 1/12, 8:30 am - 5 pm,
On Bridge:
Kayla Sharbough TSE
This portion of the meeting was led by John Nakamura. Comments and changes are reflected in the R4 document.
NANC 227
A new approach toward resolution of the problem has been developed. This new approach would involve the elimination of most of the existing requirements and the development of new requirements. This would lessen the level of NPAC effort from a High + to potentially a Medium maybe even lower. This would allow for more change orders to be included in Release 4. Action Item: John Nakamura will develop the new requirements and distribute to the group.
NANC 192
John Malyar, in response to his action item last month, stated that there did not appear to be a legal issue with the implementation of the LERG data into the NPAC provided that there was no intent to redistribute the LERG information via the NPAC. He provided a contact name (Ed Rodriguez and a website where the information could be found www.trainfo.com)
Action Item – Marcel Champagne to find out from Telcordia.
What monthly file is like (file formats)
What emergency update file looks like (file formats)
What are the differences between the two types of files
When are the monthly files sent out
When are emergency files sent out
What types of emergency updates are allowed
How close to PDP are NXX’s allowed to be added to a split as an emergency update
John Malyar was also asked to bring back information regarding the LERG and pooling. The main question that was asked was, will the LERG identify NXX-X’s that have been/are going to be pooled? There will be an indicator at the NXX level to specify that the NXX is involved in pooling. There will be a new file that will place a pooled indicator at the NXX-X level. Requirements for the LERG are developed by NRIC. This is being developed through NRIC issue # 98.
NANC 299
A new change order to create a network level heartbeat will be created as an alternative to 299. NANC 299 still requires development if the new change order does not prove to be feasible. The new change order appears to be of a much lesser level of effort than NANC 299. Marcel Champagne is looking into the requirements for the new change order. There is a possibility that it may be a documentation only change order. Neustar and the vendors who have been working on the network level heartbeat will provide a write up to be discussed at the conference call to be held on February 9th. The write up will be contained in the R4 package that will be distributed prior to the conference call. There is an action item for all SOA LSMS vendors to evaluate the network level heartbeat and be prepared to discuss the impacts of supporting or not supporting the heartbeat at the conference call.
Thursday 1/13, 8:30 am – 5 pm,
On Bridge:
Kayla Sharbough TSE
This portion of the meeting was led by John Nakamura. Comments and changes are reflected in the R4 document.
2.0 is in production and will not be reported on again unless something unusual
directly related to 2.0 occurs. There is a meeting February 1-4 to discuss the test cases
and test schedule. The 3.0 integrated FRS will be reviewed on the 4th. All
aspects of 3.0 appear to be progressing normally. Two thirds of the way through the code,
and all things are proceeding on track. On schedule with no known jeopardy items.
Action item: Neustar and all LSMS SOA vendors to evaluate the current list of prioritized change orders and give an estimate of the change orders that can be included in release 4. This needs to be available for the conference call on February 9th
Action Item: Neustar will send out an email tomorrow detailing what information will be distributed in the M&P and Test Case list for 4.0 as well as the updates that were made during this meeting with indications of all open items and a date in which any missing information will be provided on the 24th.
Action Item: Shelly Shaw to distribute call in
number for conference call on the 9th along with a schedule of all meetings
scheduled during this meeting for the month of February.
WNP – Anna PIM - Closed 2 Ongoing 2 New 1 NPAC Release status on going R4 requirements Slow Horse Update
Pooling Activation on Sundays
There is a perceived conflict with the INC pooling guidelines and the service provider maintenance window definition that prohibits the activation of a pooled block during the service provider maintenance window. There was a recommendation that the PIM 2 document be modified to specify that pooling activity not occur during the maintenance window. This will be done and distributed to the WG along with any other suggested changes to that document. It was agreed that the WG would send a letter to the INC recommending that pooling activation not occur on the day of the service provider maintenance window. Action Item: Shelly Shaw to distribute draft letter to the WG on January 14, 2000 regarding this issue.
Wireless Co-chair
Brian Egbert Sprint PCS has volunteered to act as the wireless co-chair. The wireless co-chair position has been vacant since the time of the last co-chair election. There were no candidates for that position at that time. Nominations for Wireless co-chair are being solicited at this time. There will be a vote taken at the next WG meeting and the results will be taken to NANC for approval.
Next Meetings … February 14-17 San Francisco, CA Host Pacific Bell
|
|
| Send mail to Web Content
with questions or comments about this web site. Copyright © 1999
Neustar, Inc. |