Wholesale: Products & Services

Archived System CR SCR083105-01 Detail

Edit Removed:

Validate the ICSC field entry is valid for the location (based on the ACTL location) of the requested service.

- UT, ID, MT = MS01

- CO, WY = MS02

- AZ, NM = MS03

- IA, SD, NE = NW01

- MN, ND = NW02

- WA = PN01

- OR = PN02

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 29, 2005 Revision Received Removing an edit from this Change Request. All others continue to apply to this CR.

Edit Removed:

Validate the desired due date entered is a valid work day for Qwest, i.e., weekends and holidays will be rejected.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The QORA application will be updated to include up-front edits for the following entries on the ASR. If the ASR entries do not pass the validations as described, the ASR will be rejected.

Validate the ECCKT entry on ASRs when ACT = D that all channels of the facility being disconnected are spare.

Validate the A and Z CLLI codes entered in the CFA/SCFA fields are in alpha/numeric order.

Change QORA Gateway to not perform validation of the NC-NCI combination on ASRs where the ACT = D and when the ASC-EC field is populated.

Validate the entry in the VTA field is appropriate for the requested service. Valid entries are as follows:

- REQTYP S, E, R, Allow only 12, 24, 36, 60, 84 as valid entries

- REQTYP M, Allow only 36 or 60 as valid entries

- REQTYP V, X Allow any alpha-numeric entry

Validate the jurisdiction indicated on the ASR is valid for the requested service. Entries in the PIU/PLU/CC and UNE fields will be utilized.

- If CC and/or UNE fields are populated, PIU must be blank, PLU must = 100

- If CC and/or UNE fields are blank, PLU must be blank, PIU must = 0-100

EXPECTED DELIVERABLE:

Upgrade the QORA Application to Provide Upfront Editing and Validation of ASR Entries.

Status History

Project Meetings

December 14, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest stated that this CR is scheduled to deploy on December 19, 2005.

November 16, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that the CR was revised to remove an edit. The edit removed was the validation of the ISCS entry for the location, based on the ACTL location. Peggy noted that 5 edits remain for the work effort. MCI thanked Qwest for opening the CR. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that the Action Item would be closed.

- October 19, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jill Martain/Qwest noted that there was a meeting held for Q & A and noted that AT&T has given their okay to move forward with the Release in December. Jill stated that Qwest received no objections from any CLEC to the December 19, 2005 Release Date and Qwest will move forward with implementing this CR on that date. There were no questions or comments.

-- October 12, 2005 Q&A Meeting Minutes: ATTENDEES: Sharon Van Meter-AT&T, Lisa-AT&T, Rolph Olson-AT&T, Peggy Esquibel reed-Qwest, Cassandra Hunt-Qwest, Cindy Kalakis-Qwest, Curt Anderson-Qwest, Steve Edwards-Qwest DISCUSSION: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that AT&T had requested the meeting in order to obtain clarification on some items. Rolph Olsson-AT&T stated that on the local side they use the CCNA of TPN via NDM. Rolph stated they normally interface with EXACT and asked if NDM is impacted by this effort. Rolph then asked if QORA was a Gateway. Steve Edwards-Qwest stated that QORA is a Gateway and stated that for the companies that use NDM, the data gets transformed and sent to EXACT. Steve stated that the functionality applies to NDM, GUI, and to NDM. Rolph Olson-AT&T asked if the edits also apply to NDM. Steve Edwards-Qwest said yes. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she had previously asked if EXACT was impacted and that Qwest had said no. Steve Edwards-Qwest stated that Qwest is not changing EXACT, that it is the interface that is changing. Rolph Olson-AT&T said that NDM is via the QORA Gateway and that the CR is for upfront edits which would be applied prior to EXACT. Lisa-AT&T asked if there would be a reject if the CC field was populated, PIU 0’s, and the PLU of 100. Cindy Kalakis-Qwest stated that concern was brought up so Qwest changed the edit so that 0’s would be accepted in the PIU field. Lisa-AT&T asked that if the CC is populated and needs to use a PIU 100 and PLU of 0’s, if that would be accepted. Cindy Kalakis-Qwest stated that would not be accepted. Lisa-AT&T asked for a transiting group, if 0’s & 100 are valid for IXC, MPB, or transiting group. Cindy Kalakis-Qwest asked if the question is regarding a LIS order. Lisa-AT&T said yes, is a transiting group with PIU 100 and PLU 0. Cindy Kalakis-Qwest stated that was currently not done and noted that if Qwest would ever offer that, Qwest could then maybe look at PIU 0 and PLU 100 being accepted. Lisa-AT&T said she was fine with that response and asked if a blank VTA would be permitted. Rolph Olson-AT&T stated to Lisa (AT&T) that the response was okay and the transport side would be okay. There were no additional questions or comments. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that we were glad that we could get a meeting scheduled quickly in order to get AT&Ts questions answered. Peggy then stated that it sounded like AT&T received answers to all of their questions and asked if AT&T was okay with Qwest proceeding with the proposed QORA Release in December. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she was okay with the December Release date. Rolph Olson-AT&T stated that he was also okay. Lisa-AT&T agreed as well. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest thanked everyone for their participation and the call concluded.

October 12, 2005: Sharon Van Meter-AT&T called and requested a meeting for Q&A so AT&T can determine if the December timeframe would be an issue for them. Meeting scheduled for same day.

October 10, 2005 Email Sent to SBC: VTA is not a required field, we will only validate for the correct entry IF the field is populated. Blank is an acceptable entry. Peggy Esquibel-Reed Qwest CMP

- October 6, 2005 Email Received from SBC: Is the VTA field now required? The attachment states that the only valid entries for REQTYP S are 12, 24, 36, 60, and 84 but does not state it will reject if blank.

-- October 5, 2005 Ad Hoc Meeting Minutes

ATTENDEES: Sharon Van Meter-AT&T, Bob Eggert-SBC, Stephanie Prull-Eschelon, Rosalin Davis-MCI, Jerry Shermat-AT&T, Dianne Friend-Time Warner, Kim Isaacs-Eschelon, Cynthia Gite-SBC, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, Susan Lorence-Qwest, Cindy Kalakis-Qwest, Cassandra Hunt-Qwest, Curt Anderson-Qwest, Jill Martain-Qwest, Connie Winston-Qwest, Carol McKenzie-Qwest

DISCUSSION: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that the ad hoc meeting was scheduled at the request of the CLEC Community in order for Qwest to provide more detail regarding the new QORA edits that are to be implemented via the CMP CR of SCR083105-01. Peggy then noted that the CR was revised to remove one of the edits from the original request, and the edit removed is the edit to validate that the desired due date was a Qwest work day. Peggy then stated that there was an exception vote held, on September 22nd, requesting an earlier implementation date. A vote was not applicable and was held in error. During that vote, the exception was not granted. The ad hoc meeting notice was then sent, for this meeting, and it indicated that the vote was held in error and that the edits would be implemented in December. Qwest then stepped back and took another look at this and the result is that Qwest will honor the outcome of that vote. Peggy then noted that going forward; Qwest will not seek an exception of this type, for QORA CRs. Peggy stated that before the actual Release date is determined, we would like to provide additional information regarding the edits that will be implemented with this CR, relay the benefits to you, and then talk with the CLECs about the benefits to them with moving forward in the December timeframe. Peggy then stated that a document was sent out yesterday, via the notification process that Connie would use in the discussion of the new QORA edits. Peggy then asked if all had the document. All did have it. There ere no questions or comments. Peggy then turned the call over to Connie Winston-Qwest. Connie Winston-Qwest stated that Qwest did want to provide a little more detail around the CR. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if the changes effected EXACT. Connie Winston-Qwest stated that no changes were being made in EXACT and that these changes are for QORA. Connie Winston-Qwest reviewed the Power Point Slide titled ‘Validation of ECCKT on Disconnect Requests’ and stated that for ACT=D, the validation is to make sure that the channels are not busy. If they are not empty, the ASR would be rejected and would be returned to your NDM file, or a letter file. Connie stated that this will result in faster resolution. Dianne Friend-Time Warner asked if there was a pending disconnect on a channel, if it would show that the channel was busy or show that there was a pending disconnect. Connie Winston-Qwest stated that there would be validation on pending disconnects and that it would be manually handled, so would not be rejected. Connie then stated that there would be a reject if the channel was busy and there was no pending service order. Dianne Friend-Time Warner asked if it would the be verified by the Center. Connie Winston-Qwest stated yes and noted that it could still result in a reject. Jerry Shermat-AT&T asked if he were processing a switched service order with no other related PON and the T! and trunks on the same order, is the answer the same and the T1 would not be restricted. Cindy Kalakis-Qwest stated that the edit only applies to a REQTYP of S. Dianne Friend-Time Warner stated that if the trunks were associated to a T1, it is a REQTYP of MD. Jerry Shermat-AT&T stated that if the T1 and the trunks are on a REQTYP of MD and is excluded from that condition, then is good. Connie Winston-Qwest then reviewed the slide titled ‘Expand CFA Validation’. Connie stated that she believed this to be an ASOG edit and noted that it does not happen very often. Connie stated that Qwest wants to give the opportunity to get it in correctly. Jerry Shermat-AT&T stated that if orders a T1/T3 and assign the circuit to the facility, he would apply the CFA name provided by Qwest. Jerry asked if the sequence of the CLLIs is not verified. Connie Winston-Qwest said that Qwest would not violate the rule in the response back. Jerry Shermat-AT&T stated that when they process them, they are restricted because is a Qwest name. Jerry asked if there was a method to process the order until a correction can be made. Connie Winston-Qwest stated that she was not aware of that happening and asked if there was a path for that situation. Cindy Kalakis-Qwest stated that none have been incorrect and that sending them correctly is what we would want to see. Jerry Shermat-AT&T stated that the data is Qwest provided so they are restricted on what can be changed. Jerry stated that when processing an expedite order, if there was a way to provide a way to get the expedite through until the corrections can be made. Connie Winston-Qwest stated that she assumes that there is a process for an escalation; that systems can have unusual things happen. Cindy Kalakis-Qwest stated that they would need to call in a trouble ticket. Cindy then stated that the ASR would then be allowed to come in. Connie Winston-Qwest stated that this should be rare, but that it could happen. Jerry Shermat-AT&T stated that there is not a problem with extended intervals, there is only a problem with shorter intervals and just needs a way to handle it. Connie Winston-Qwest stated that she agreed. Connie Winston-Qwest then reviewed the 3rd slide, ‘Change in NC/NCI Validation’ and stated that for ACT=D, an edit is being relaxed, and that the edit does not get hit very often. Connie Winston-Qwest then reviewed slides 4 & 5, ‘Validation of the ICSC Code’, and stated that they are Telecordia codes and that there are specific codes that need to be entered on a request. Jerry Shermat-AT&T stated that validation is based on ACTL and asked if it would work for primary and secondary, in a meet point billing arrangement. Cindy Kalakis-Qwest stated that if both are in the same state, there will be validation. If they are different states, the ASR would be allowed to come in and would be manually handled, due to LATA exceptions. Connie Winston-Qwest stated that Qwest wants to get back to the CLEC quickly for a resolution, instead of the Center looking at it manually. Dianne Friend-Time Warner asked how this impacts meet point billing. Cindy Kalakis-Qwest stated that it looks at the states, even if one end is not Qwest. Dianne Friend-Time Warner asked if the only concern is regarding the ACTL CLLI and the Qwest ICSC Code. Cindy Kalakis-Qwest said yes. Connie Winston-Qwest reviewed slide 6 ‘Validation on the VTA Field’. Connie stated that this field is used more on the IXC side and is not terribly impacting to CLECs. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if this was for NDM users. Connie Winston-Qwest asked if the question was regarding this CR or just this edit. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated questioning if CR is for NDM users. Connie Winston-Qwest said yes. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if a blank in the VTA Field be permitted. Cindy Kalakis-Qwest said yes and noted that VTA will not be a required field. Cindy noted that if the field is populated, it will be edited. Jerry Shermat-AT&T asked based on the T3 CFA, would they know if VTA was appropriate. Cindy Kalakis-Qwest said yes and stated that the edit is for new service with a term agreement. Cindy stated that then the VTA may be applicable but is not a required field. Jerry Shermat-AT&T asked to clarify that there would be no validation if is for service being ordered and not riding a facility. Cindy Kalakis-Qwest stated that was correct. Connie Winston-Qwest then reviewed slide 7 ‘Jurisdiction Validation’. Connie stated that the system would validate that the data on the ASR is appropriate for the requested service. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if the CC and/or UNE fields are populated, has a REQTYP of M, PIU 000, and a PLU of 100, if that would be an issue. Cassandra Hunt-Qwest clarified that the PIU would only accept a blank. Connie Winston-Qwest noted that 0’s would cause a reject. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked for IXCs, if they should always use PIU 100 and PLU 000. Sharon stated that they always populate the CC field and asked if that would be a problem. Cindy Kalakis-Qwest asked to clarify that AT&T is populating the CC field on their IXC orders. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T said yes. Jerry Shermat-AT&T asked if Sharon was referring to interconnection services. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that the email that she received states IXC orders. Jerry Shermat-AT&T stated that he would agree for interconnection orders but not for IXCs. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T asked if the first part would reject due to the 0’s. Connie Winston-Qwest said yes and noted that there is not a high occurrence of a problem Connie Winston-Qwest stated that is the hi-level recap that could have some impacts to the CLECs. Connie stated that some edits are relaxing and most of what is being done does currently reject and a change is then needed to be done by the customer. This CR is for changes to enable to get the ASR back to you quicker and lessen the manual processing. Connie then asked for the CLECs thoughts for a December Release. Connie also noted that Qwest will honor the vote but does believe that the CLEC concern was that they did not know what the impacts were. Connie then asked for input. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she needs to take back the information regarding the CC field reject to her internal folks. Sharon stated that AT&T may need to do some changes, so a December Release may not work for AT&T. Connie Winston-Qwest said she understood and asked AT&T if the December timeframe would not work for them, to please let Qwest know why it wouldn’t work. Connie then stated that Qwest understanding how a proposed edit would impact AT&T, Qwest could talk to the development team to see if the edit could be removed from the release. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that she would talk to her people and would send an email to Peggy Esquibel Reed (Qwest) or ask for a call. Sharon stated that she would get the information ASAP. Connie Winston-Qwest asked if there were any other CLEC concerns. Dianne Friend-Time Warner stated that she also needed to run these changes by her business partners in order to determine if there were any impacts to Time Warner, before she can say if the December timeframe would work for them. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon asked for the December date. Connie Winston-Qwest stated that the proposed Release date is December 19th. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated that she thought it was during the holiday week. Connie Winston-Qwest stated that it is the week before the holiday and that the changes would be available to the CLECs on 12/19. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated that they use the GUI so there would be no coding for them and asked if they would get the normal notifications and training. Connie Winston-Qwest said yes and stated that in the GUI, there would be new error messages. Kim Isaacs-Eschelon stated that they just needed to be prepared for them. Connie Winston-Qwest stated that she agreed. Connie stated that Qwest would like to move forward with the 12/19 date, unless a CLEC raises a red flag to say that the 12/19 date would not work for them and helps Qwest understand why it wouldn’t. Connie said then because if it is just one edit that is causing the concern, there is a possibility that the edit could be removed. Connie asked how the CLECs felt about that plan. Dianne Friend-Time Warner asked for the date that the CLECs needed to raise the red flag by. Connie Winston-Qwest stated that Qwest would need to know no later than October 14th. Susan Lorence-Qwest stated that with a 12/19 effective date, the system notice would need to be sent by 10/7. Connie Winston-Qwest stated that the notice could still go out on 10/7 and if the release date changes, Qwest could let the CLECs know via a follow-up notice. Susan Lorence-Qwest stated that would be a good idea. Connie Winston-Qwest stated that we would like to continue moving forward in case we can keep the December date. Connie stated that if the 12/19 date needs to be changed, then this call served to provide the CLECs with information a little earlier than on the walk through. Bob Eggert-SBC stated that SBC uses the GUI and understands that the edits were going to be more up-front and that they could result in rejects. Bob asked if the documentation would be updated with the information for the error messages. Connie Winston-Qwest said yes and noted that the GUI is a little easier than for those getting the code changes. Connie then asked if there were any other questions, concerns, or comments. There were none brought forward. Connie Winston-Qwest stated that the CR was issued a little late and stated that we have taken that feedback. Connie then said that she was sorry that it happened and noted that Qwest is trying to do things that benefit both Qwest and the CLEC Community and to try and get a cleaner ASR. Connie then thanked the CLECs for their participation on the call. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T thanked Qwest for meeting to discuss the CR further and provide clarification. Sharon stated that this just moved too fast. Sharon again noted that she appreciated the call. The call was concluded.

- September 22, 2005 Exception Vote Meeting: Attendees: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest, Cindy Kalakis-Qwest, Cassandra Hunt-Qwest, Curt Anderson -Qwest, Susan Lorence -Qwest, Rosalin Davis-MCI, Stephanie Prull-Eschelon, Sharon Van Meter- AT&T Meeting Discussion: Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that the meeting is for Qwest to conduct the exception vote for new QORA Edits and the exception request is to allow implementation of this CR prior to the normal implementation timeline. The CR is for QORA to implement new upfront edits and was presented at the September 21st Monthly CMP Meeting. Peggy then noted that quorum for the vote to occur is 9 and was achieved, due to the receipt of emailed votes. Peggy stated that a vote of yes would allow implementation on December 17th and a vote of no would not allow implementation on December 17th. Peggy stated that a unanimous vote is needed in order for the exception to be granted. Peggy then conducted the vote: Qwest voted ‘Yes’ via email RockyNet voted ‘Yes’ via email Wantel voted ‘Yes' via email Sprint voted ‘Yes’ via email VCI voted ‘Yes’ via email Comcast voted ‘Yes' via email TDS Abstained from the vote because the impacts were not yet clear Time Warner voted ‘Yes’ via email Covad Abstained from the vote Eschelon Abstained from the vote because the impacts were not yet clear AT&T voted ‘No’

Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that the no vote was due to the fact that AT&T is not yet aware of how the new edits would impact them. Sharon asked if the changes were to the business rules. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that coding depends on each individual company. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon asked why these changes were not being implemented in an ASOG Release. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that the edits were being implemented in a major release, it is not an ASOG Release. Sharon Van Meter-AT&T stated that the CR was presented, then the vote taken quickly, before the CLECs could asses the impacts to their companies. Sharon then asked for an ad hoc call in order for Qwest to better explain the requested changes. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest stated that an ad hoc meeting would be scheduled in order for questions and concerns to be addressed. Stephanie Prull-Eschelon stated that a vote should not be taken prior to the tech specs going out because the impacts are not yet known to the CLEC Community. Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest thanked Stephanie for the feedback. There were no additional questions or comments. Peggy Stated that the exception was not granted by a vote of 7 ‘Yes’ votes, 1 ‘No’ votes, and 3 ‘Abstain’ votes. Peggy then thanked all for their participation and feedback. Peggy stated that the vote disposition would be sent. The call was concluded.

-- September 21, 2005 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Cindy Kalakis/Qwest presented the CR and reviewed the listed edits. Cindy noted that Qwest is requesting an exception to implement this CR prior to the normal timeline, which could be during the December Holiday weekend. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that implementing a week before the holiday is not much better and asked if the CR could be implemented after the holiday, in January. Cindy Kalakis/Qwest stated that Qwest would like this implemented by the end of the year but can consider a January timeframe. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked why this was not being implemented in a Release. Cindy Kalakis/Qwest stated that Qwest would like to implement these edits outside of an ASOG Release. Dianne Friend/Time Warner asked if the edits were also for the Gateway. Cindy Kalakis/Qwest stated that the edits would be implemented in the Gateway. Dianne Friend/Time Warner asked to clarify that the edits are Qwest specific edits and not OBF. Cindy Kalakis/Qwest stated that was correct. Bob Eggert/SBC asked if the edit for A to Z CLLI was not OBF. Cindy Kalakis/Qwest stated that the ASOG does say that the A to Z CLLI is in alpha-numeric order and that Qwest would follow those guidelines. Dianne Friend/Time Warner asked if these should normally be included in a normal Release, like in October. Cindy Kalakis/Qwest stated that these are additional edits that we could not fit into the October Release. Liz Balvin/Covad asked if this CR would require changes on the CLEC side. Cindy Kalakis/Qwest stated that it should not and is in line with the Industry Standards. Cindy noted that we are doing the edits upfront and there should be no code changes on the CLEC side. Liz Balvin/Covad asked if the business rules were already out. Jill Martain/Qwest asked if the question was in regard to the Draft Tech Specs. Liz Balvin/Covad asked when the Draft Tech Specs would be available. Jill Martain/Qwest stated that we did not yet have the date and stated that we would have the date prior to the vote meeting. There were no additional questions or comments.

- September 12, 2005 Email Received from Cindy Kalakis: I am requesting an exception on CR#SCR083105-01. The exception is to enable Qwest to implement the QORA release described in the CR in a shorter timeframe than currently allowed by the CMP document. If the exception is granted, the implementation date would be on December 17, 2005, which is approximately 7 days earlier than the guideline states. This exception is being requested to avoid implementation on the holiday weekend of December 24, when resources are limited. I am requesting an Exception Call/Meeting prior to the October CMP meeting with the CLECs to vote on this exception. If you have questions, please let me know. Cindy Kalakis Lead Project Manager Qwest Wholesale Service Delivery

- September 9, 2005 Clarification: Attendees: Cindy Kalakis-Qwest, Curt Anderson-Qwest, Cassandra Hunt-Qwest, Susan Lorence-Qwest, Kyle Kirves-Qwest, Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest

Peggy Esquibel Reed-Qwest reviewed the CRs description and asked if there was additional information, there was none. Cindy Kalakis-Qwest stated that she would be requesting an exception for implementation on 12/17/05.

CenturyLink Response

September 20, 2005

RE: SCR053105-01 New QORA Edits

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request SCR083105-01. Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification Meeting (held September 9, 2005) Qwest is able to provide the estimated Level of Effort of 3700 to 5000 hours for this Change Request.

There is a scheduled Exception Call & Vote to occur on September 22, 2006. Qwest is seeking an exception to the normal implementation timelines.

At the September 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

Sincerely, Qwest