Archived System CR SCR062702-03 Detail |
| Title: Autopopulate LSO (local serving office) field in IMA and remove edit that prevents APTCON (appointment confermation) and LSO field to both be populated | |||||
| CR Number |
Current Status Date |
Level of Effort |
Interface/ Release No. |
Area Impacted |
Products Impacted |
|
|
|||||
| SCR062702-03 |
Completed 4/17/2003 |
600 - 900 | 3/12 | Ordering | ALL |
| Originator: Johnson, Bonnie |
| Originator Company Name: Eschelon |
| Owner: Winston, Connie |
| Director: |
| CR PM: Esquibel-Reed, Peggy |
| Description Of Change |
|
The LSO is a required field in IMA (except when the APTCON is populated/then the LSO cannot be). When you have a validated address the LSO appear on the address validation. When submitting an LSR, have IMA autopopulate the LSO information from the validated address. When the field is not automaticaly populated the CLEC has to manually look the information up on the address validation screen or the LERG and populate the information. However, when populating the APTCON with the information from appointment scheduler, the LSO does autocomplete. Since IMA will not allow the LSO field to be populated the CLEC will get an error that the field cannot be populated. Always autopopulate theLSO and remove the edit preveting the LSO & APTCON to be populated on the same LSR.
Expected Deliverable: IMA will autopopulate the LSO fields that is a required field on the LSR form in IMA and allow the APTCON and the LSO to be populated on the LSR.
|
Status History |
| Date | Action | Description |
| 6/27/2002 | CR Submitted | |
| 6/27/2002 | CR Acknowledged | |
| 6/28/2002 | Info Requested from CLEC | Sent email to Bonnie Johnson asking if June 26th CLEC Meeting served as the Clarification Call for this CR. |
| 7/1/2002 | Info Received From CLEC | Received email from Bonnie Johnson requesting a call. |
| 7/2/2002 | Clarification Meeting Scheduled | Meeting scheduled for July 9, 2002. |
| 7/9/2002 | Clarification Meeting Held | Clarification Meeting Held |
| 7/9/2002 | Status Changed | Status changed to clarification |
| 7/10/2002 | Additional Information | CR Revised per Bonnie Johnson email. See Project Meetings Section for details. |
| 7/18/2002 | Discussed at Monthly CMP Meeting | SCR062702-03 discussed at July Systems CMP Monthly meeting; please see Systems CMP Distribution Package July CMP -- Attachment B |
| 7/18/2002 | Status Changed | Discussed at July CMP Meeting, CR updated to Pending Prioritization. |
| 7/26/2002 | Release Ranking | Ranking for Release 12.0 following the July 2002 Systems CMP Meeting. SCR062702-03 ranked number 17 (tie) |
| 10/30/2002 | Status Changed | SCR062702-03 status updated to 'Packaged' based upon outcome of release 12.0 packaging effort |
| 12/19/2002 | Discussed at Monthly CMP Meeting | SCR062702-03 discussed at December Systems CMP Monthly meeting; please see Systems CMP Distribution Package December CMP -- Attachment N |
| 4/7/2003 | Status Changed | Status changed to CLEC Test due to IMA 12.0 deployment |
| 4/17/2003 | Discussed at Monthly CMP Meeting | SCR062702-03 discussed at April Systems CMP Monthly meeting; please see April Systems CMP Distribution Package, Attachment G. |
Project Meetings |
| April 17, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: John Gallegos/Qwest stated that this item was included in the IMA 12.0 Release. John noted that the post deployment call was held and that there is no open issue regarding this CR. No comments. CR changed to 'completed' status. October 23, 2002 Attendees: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, John Gallegos/Qwest, Monica Manning/Qwest Discussion: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest recapped that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss, with Eschelon, a change to the approach for this request. Monica Manning/Qwest stated that the proposed change is based on IMA architecture and product functionality. Monica stated that the developers have indicated that it would be more compatible to move the function to the BPL in lieu of performing the function in the GUI. Monica stated that the autopopulate function would then occur after the LSR is submitted, it would not occur on-line in the GUI. Monica stated that the BPL would do the look up and would populate the LSO in the LSO field. Monica stated that this is a subtle change. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that if the edit was lifted would end up with the same result. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she was okay with the change in approach and had no problem with it. There were no other questions or comments. July 18, 2002 CMP Meeting Discussion: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon reviewed this change request. There were no comments from other CMP participants. Michael Buck/Qwest stated that Qwest understands the request. The LOE is provided in the CR response and is eligible for the 12.0 vote. The status of this change request will be changed to Pending Prioritization. July 9, 2002 Email from Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon: Please remove any reference on this CR to the LST field as we determined on the call that this field is rarely required. Thanks, Bonnie Subsequent Clarification Meeting July 9, 2002: Attendees: Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon, Berkley Loggie/Qwest, Bret Birkholz/Qwest, Monica Manning/Qwest, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest CR description was reviewed. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the LST & LSO are required fields except if the APTCON field is populated. Eschelon requests these fields to always autopopulate when has a validated address. Monica Manning/Qwest stated that the rules vary by product and asked if this was for all products? Monica stated that for 8 products, if have the LSO then don't need the APTCON. Bret Birkholz/Qwest stated that the LST is not returned on an address validation. Bonnie agreed and stated that wants it to autopopulate when it is required. Bret advised that the LST could not be populated on an address validation. Bonnie asked if it was required. Monica stated that the LST is not required, it is either optional or conditional. Bonnie advised that she woul revise this CR to remove the LST requirement from this request. Bret asked if the EU Form or the LSR Form was filled out first? Stated that if the LSR Form was filled out first that it would not populate the EU Form. Bonnie advised that the LSR Form was the form populated first. Bret advised that there is not a drop down to select validated address on the LSR Form, it is on the EU Form. Bonnie stated that Eschelon would establish an internal manual process to populate the EU Form first. Will not ask for the Form sequence to change, as does not want a high LOE that would need to be prioritized. Bret asked Bonnie if she was okay with filling out the EU Form first to get the drop down. Bonnie responded yes. Bonnie stated that when the APTCON is populated, the LSO gets pre-populated, then IMA doesn't want it. Monica stated that the rule is limited to products. If the LSO is populated, the APTCON does not need to be populated. Stated it could be translating to prohibit. Bret advised would look into requiring the APTCON when the LSO is populated but that the populated LSO not to require APTCON. No other questions were raised. June 26, 2002 CLEC Meeting Notes - Initial Clarification Meeting: Request to auto populate LST/LSO from the address validation. - Currently when the validated address is selected from the drop down box the address fields are automatically populated. I believe that this is asking that in addition to the address fields being populated that the LSO and LST fields also be autopopulated. - A possible issue with this is that the address fields (and drop down box) are on the EUI form and the LST and LSO fields are on the LSR form. - Able to locate the LSO information on an address validation pre-order, but I don’t see anything labled LST. Need to determine whether this is returned on an address validation or not.
|
CenturyLink Response |
| DRAFT Response July 9, 2002 RE: SCR062702-03 Autopopulate LST (local service termination) and LSO (local serving office) field in IMA and remove edit that prevents APTCON (appointment confermation) and LSO field to both be populated Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request (SCR062702-03). Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meeting (held July 9, 2002) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 1050 to 1750 hours for this IMA Change Request. At the next Monthly Systems CMP Meeting, CMP participants will be given the opportunity to comment on this Change Request and provide additional clarifications. Any clarifications and/or modifications identified at that time will be incorporated into Qwest's further evaluation of this Change Request. This Change Request is an eligible candidate for the IMA 12.0 prioritization vote. Sincerely, Qwest
|
Information Current as of 1/11/2021