Wholesale: Products & Services

Archived System CR SCR032904-01 Detail

Expected Deliverable:

Ability to process REQTYP=HB using TN and SANO/AHN for DL listings only changes

Status History

Project Meetings

-- October 19, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: This CR deployed on 10/17/05 and will remain in CLEC Test

-- September 21, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: This CR will deploy on 10/10/05. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that she was notified late last night that there could be potential issues with the October releases and that since we were all meeting today she wanted to let everyone know that there was the potential that the release dates could slip. Jill advised that Qwest would send the appropriate system notifications if it is determined that the release date needed to change.

- August 10, 2005 EXCERPT from the 18.0 Release Qwest/CLEC Overview and the Combined Overview & IMA EDI Disclosure Documentation Walkthrough for IMA EDI Release 18.0 Walkthrough Attendees Anders Ingemarson-Qwest, Angela Stewart-Qwest, Angie Thompson-Wizor, Anne Robberson-Qwest, Brian Caywood-Qwest, Chris Terrell-AT&T, Chuck Anderson-Qwest, Cim Chambers-Qwest, Dave Schleicher-Qwest, Denise Martinez-Qwest, Diane Burt-AT&T, Dianne Friend-Time Warner, Gary Berroa-Qwest, John Sanclaria-Qwest, Judy DeRosier-Qwest, Lynn Stecklein-Qwest, Mark Coyne-Qwest, Mark Haynes-Qwest, Michael Lopez-Qwest, Michelle Thacker-Qwest, Pat Bratetic-Qwest, Russ Urevig-Qwest, Sandie Tekavec-Qwest, Shon Higer-Qwest, Stephanie Prull-Eschelon Introductions: Kyle Kirves began the meeting by taking attendance and announcing the meeting purpose. The meeting notice included copies of the agenda and the candidate overview document. Kyle explained that the walkthrough would cover the candidates, the candidate impacts to the associated documentation, and the IMA EDI Disclosure Documentation overview.

Functional Overview extracted from Notice: "LISTINGS ONLY" is the way to make additions, deletions, or changes to directory listings after an account is established. A unique REQTYP of HB is used for the Listings Only requests, even though the account may be for Resale - POTS, UNE-P, or other services which carry their own REQTYP when provisioning is involved. No other service changes can be done on the Listings Only request. Listings Only requests will include a Local Service Request (LSR), End User (EU), and Directory Listings (DL) forms. SCR032904-01 requested the elimination of the need for CLECs to provide a full AN, End User Name and Service Address on UNE-POTS Directory Listing Only changes (REQTYP= HB). This project requests the ability to process REQTYP=HB using TN and SANO/AHN for DL (Directory Listings) only changes. Form Impacts: The LSOG EU form will be affect for product 13, the entry requirement will change to optional. Products: Product 13 - Listings only, SL (Straight Line) and SH (Straight Line Header), ReqType = HB, ACT = R, this will affect any product that currently can have listing changes today. Activities: EU form impacts for entries but no physical change to form.

Walkthrough Discussion: Russ Urevig reviewed the information provided in the candidate overview document circulated with the meeting agenda and the meeting notification announcement. Kyle opened the floor to Questions. Stephanie Prull asked if the changes would be applicable to all products that had Product 13-applicable rules. Russ confirmed that, yes, the candidate would apply to all products with Product 13 rules. Kyle stated that there were no corresponding documentation updates. Russ confirmed that statement.

- May 18, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain-Qwest asked if there were any questions or comments regarding the IMA 18.0 Packaging, in attachment M. There were questions or comments brought forward.

-- February 16, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that this is AT&T’s number one priority on the list.

-- July 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest stated that Qwest would distribute the ballot on July 27th, it is due back to Qwest on July 30th, and Qwest would email the initial prioritization list to the CLECs on August 3rd. There were no questions. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that this is medium for AT&T.

- June 17, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the Level of Effort for this CR is 750 to 850 hours. This Action Item is Closed.

-- May 20, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the LOE is pending. Connie Winston/Qwest agreed that allowing the product field with ‘All’ can be confusing. Connie said that we clarified the CR, had the walk through meeting and also disclosed and updated the PCAT with a comment cycle. Connie stated that in the body of the CR, the product set was included and that we met our part of the agreement. 6/1/04 Revision to Minutes from MCI - Liz Balvin/MCI agreed that the CMP minutes clearly reflected the end result agreement that ALL products would be included in the CR. Connie Winston/Qwest said that the documentation stated that HB would not be included. Liz Balvin/MCI said that her main concern is that it was not communicated from CMP to the Qwest teams. Susie Bliss/Qwest said that we reviewed all the associated documentation and that the CR and PCAT were clear on what was to be implemented. Susie stated that we will just have to disagree. 6/1/04 Revision to Minutes from MCI - Liz Balvin/MCI stated that MCI is an EDI user and that they base their coding on EDI disclosure and that is where the documented business rules must be. Liz said that because Qwest didn’t properly take back what was agreed to in CMP, AT&T had to initiate another CR that may or may not get implemented in the next available release because there were the only CLEC impacted. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that you have to go to two different places for the PCAT and disclosure information and you should not have to. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the action item will remain open for the LOE.

-

April 22, 2004 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T reviewed the CR Description. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that she would like a discussion regarding customer code. Liz stated that she checked previous meeting minutes and would like to discuss the AT&T CR to eliminate all products. Liz asked why this CR is required when the AT&T CR should have been a functional change. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this REQTYP (HB) was not included in AT&T’s CR. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that she is having a hard time with this and stated that AT&T and MCI had said that they wanted to eliminate the customer code all together. Liz stated that this is one scenario where the CLEC did not catch it in the walk-thru. Liz stated that this should be treated as a production support issue and not a CR. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the items In-Scope and Out-of-Scope are contained within the body of the CR and this specific item was out-of-scope. Connie stated that maybe the ‘All’ designation should not be used in the Products Impacted box of the CR and noted that is why Qwest needs specific details for each request. Connie stated that when the walk-thru was held, Qwest provided specific details of what was being deployed. Connie stated that we all have to be engaged. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that it was not vague; the CR was very specific. Liz stated that when the order goes in and the customer code is required, the response says that the ISC would figure out what the customer code is. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest and MCI disagree on this issue; Qwest feels that scope was clearly stated. Susie Bliss/Qwest asked Liz (Balvin/MCI) what she suggests be done. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that it should be resolved in a patch and that she would call in a trouble ticket. Liz stated that she does not have examples to provide. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked for the reason that the HB REQTYP was not included in AT&T’s CR. Bonnie stated that the assumption was that the CR was for any order. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she would check with the analyst that was assigned to that CR. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she would like to see all REQTYP’s included for products. 5/3/04 - Revision to minutes from Eschelon - Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she would like to see all REQTYP’s automatically included for products. The request type should be assumed 'all' unless the CLEC requests otherwise. If Qwest determines all of the request types cannot be included, Qwest should disclose that to the CLECs. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that Qwest said that they would do for all REQTYP’s. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest is doing that with Parsed and Structured CSR CR. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Qwest needs to tell the CLECs if a particular REQTYP would be an issue. Liz Balvin/MCI stated that the customer code should have been eliminated with 14.0 and now AT&T issued a CR for a specific REQTYP. Liz stated that the CR might not get enough votes to be included with the 17.0 Release. Liz again stated that this should be a production support issue and does not think that AT&T should have had to submit a CR. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she would check the reason why the REQTYP of HB was not included. There were no additional questions or comments. This CR is in Presented Status.

- Systems Clarification Meeting Date: April 4, 2004 CR No & Title: SCR032904-01 Ability to Process REQTYP = HB Using TN and SANO/AHN (pertaining to Directory Listings only changes)

Introduction of Attendees: Donna Osborne-Miller-AT&T, Phyllis Burt-AT&T, Regina Mosley-AT&T, Lynn Stecklein-Qwest, Angela Stewart-Qwest, Russ Urevig-Qwest

Review Requested (Description of) Change: Lynn Stecklein/Qwest reviewed the CR Description and Expected Deliverable: Eliminate the need to provide a full AN, End User Name and Service Address on UNE-POTS Directory Listing Only changes (REQTYP=HB); similar to what was implemented with IMA14.0 candidates SCR022703-18 and SCR 022703-24 for UNEP POTS (REQTYP=MB). Expected Deliverable is the ability to process REQTYP=HB using TN and SANO/AHN for DL listings only changes.

Confirmed Impacted Interfaces: Lynn Stecklein/Qwest confirmed that the impacted interface is IMA Common only.

Confirmed Impacted Products: Lynn Stecklein/Qwest confirmed that this CR is for UNE-P Pots.

Additional Meeting Discussion: Russ Urevig/Qwest asked to clarify that this request is only that the TN & SANO is required on the LSR DL Form, for a free-standing listing. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated that she did not understand Russ’ comment. Russ Urevig/Qwest clarified that AT&T is requesting that on the LSR, AT&T only wants to provide the TN & SANO and does not want to provide any other data. Phyllis Burt/AT&T stated yes, this request is only for Directory Listings, a REQTYP of HB. Phyllis stated that a Directory Listing’s request, with other features, are already covered with other CMP CR’s. Russ Urevig/Qwest asked if AT&T is asking that Qwest mirror what was done for the other existing TN/SANO CMP CR’s. Phyllis Burt/AT&T responded yes. There were no further questions or comments.

CenturyLink Response

May 26, 2004

RE: SCR032904-01 The Ability to Process REQTYP= HB Using TN and SANO/AHN (pertaining to Directory Listings only changes)

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request (SCR032904-01). Based upon the scope of this CR, Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 750 to 850 hours for this IMA Change Request, with no impact to SATE.

This Change Request is an eligible candidate for the IMA 17.0 prioritization vote.

Sincerely, Qwest

- DRAFT RESPONSE

May 11, 2004

RE: SCR032904-01 The Ability to Process REQTYP= HB Using TN and SANO/AHN (pertaining to Directory Listings only changes)

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR032904-01. Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification Meeting (held April 2, 2004) Qwest is still examining the issue. Qwest will continue to research the problem and provide an updated response at the June Systems CMP Meeting.

At the May Monthly Systems CMP Meeting, CMP participants will be given the opportunity to comment on this Change Request and provide additional clarifications. Qwest is interested in the experiences of the CMP community as relates to this issue. Qwest will incorporate any feedback received at the next Monthly Systems CMP Meeting into further evaluation of this Change Request.

Sincerely, Qwest