Team, the following minutes are a compilation of Robin Meier (Ameritech) and Ed Elkins (AT&T) notes (thanks Robin and Ed). These minutes may not be all inclusive and may not cover all information discussed. If there are any major discrepancies or missing items you feel should have been included, please let me know and I will amend the minutes.

Barry Bishop

312-220-8000

6-10-97

Open and Welcome

AGENDA

Intra Company Porting - Covered 6-9

Cause Code 26 announcement (NIIF issue 59) Covered 6-9

Resellers Covered 6-9

XXX-X Covered 6-9, 6-10

OBF form Covered 6-9

LNP Test # (NIIF issue 61) Covered 6-9

RCF Roller Covered 6-9

IVR Covered 6-9

ATTENDEES

NAME TELEPHONE # FAX# E-MAIL

Walt Subora 847-248-5418 847-248-6746 walter.subora@ameritech.com

Robin Meier 312-220-2603 312-220-2603 robinrdm@aol.com

Kent Roberts 312-220-2601 312-845-3532 kent@ameritech.com

Sharon Gallo 718-355-4184 718-355-4804

Oc Jackson 630-979-4694 630-979-5467 Jacksono@att.com

Mitch Mitchell 510-824-2007 510-244-1300 Jonathon.Mitchell@MFSdatanet.com

Ed Elkin 312-230-2567 312-230-8305 eelkin@att.com

Larry Vasques 312-230-6253 312-230-8343 lvasquez@att.com

Jim Joerger 972-498-5084 972-918-1499 jim.joerger@mci.com

note: This is a new E-mail address for Jim

Darin Liston 913-624-3010 913-624-8199

Gene Johnston 972-718-4862 972-719-7394 Willie.Johnston@telops.gte.com

Alan Harris 908-805-8795 908-805-8102 !amharris

Nancy DeRoo 708-229-0461 708-229-0387 nancy.deroo@ameritech.com

Ron Steen 205-977-7268 205-977-7222 ron.steen@bridge.bellsouth.com

Amador Lucero 303-896-8093 303-896-6511 ablucer@uswest.com

Sue Seitz 414-227-2983 414-678-4532

Brent Struthers312-814-6025 312-814-1818 bstruthe@icc08r1.state.il.us

HANDOUTS

LNP Steering Committee Meeting Minutes

LNP Operations Flows

Intra-Service Provider Porting of a Previously Non-Ported Customer

NIIF Issue#59

Attendance list

NIIF Issue 61 and Contribution for issue 61 from Allan Jones.

NXX-X Assignment for Number Conservation

Letter to NIIF with Midwest Industry response to NIIF issue 61

Inter-Service Provider LNP Process Automation

Review of Steering Committee Meeting Minutes, dated May 22, 1997.

Action Item: Please provide Contact information for Code Opening

MCI Jim Joerger

AT&T Rich Nazar, 2E A168, 1 Oak Way, Berkeley Heights, NJ 07729, rnazar@att.com

Test Team update - Walt Subora

On going work will continue this week in meeting

SPOC Team next week

Intra Company Porting - Ed Elkin

Brought in Vu-graph, copies distributed, titled Intra-Service Provider Porting of a Previously Non-Ported Customer

Ed would like to see his 2 sentence suggestion in the minutes.

Ed's suggestion was discussed and no one expressed a problem with it however, some people wanted to review it with their company and have the ability to discuss it further if needed.

Cause Code 26 - Robin Meier

Gave an update of Issue 59 (NIIF). There has not been a formal NIIF meeting since the last LNP Industry meeting.

Action Item- Participants need to investigate and provide their own treatment reached for cause code 26 and make sure the SPOC for the test team is aware of the appropriate treatment for each provider when tests are made. Not all companies may be using the same treatment.

It was determined to leave the resolution up to the NIIF and not to continue to work this issue here. Robin Meier will provide NIIF updates as they occur.

RCF rollover issue - Nancy DeRoo

Discussion ensued.

Need to notify the 911 data base people this is going on. Suggestion was made to handle as a project and manage it appropriately. This activity needs to be brought to the attention of all who have a need to know.

Default issue is big.

RESELLERS

Proposal for end user name to be listed in the end user entry form and resellers name to be listed in the remark section as a work around until OBF can make it official in the form.

NIIF Issue 61 and Contribution Discussion - Robin Meier

Midwest Regional Team

Jim Joerger will put together a straw proposal for submittal to the NIIF as a contribution from the Midwest Regional Team.

On board discussion, points noted

  1. NANC - Process Flow cares for testing a ported # in a portable NPA/NXX
  2. Implementation teams addressing initial deployments of ported NPA/NXX's
  3. Benefit not clear by doing on NPA/NXX versus LRN

To be discussed briefly on 6-10

Reviewed contribution (attached) from Jim and accepted it. Will be prepared to be sent to Allan Jones.

OBF FORM -Sue Seitz

Ameritech would prefer EDI as opposed to a paper copy being passed back and forth.

LSR acceptable for ordering long term number portability only.

Loop request still has to be sent on ASR

Agreed to use Number Portability Form, if loop requested, note in remarks to look for ASR

Interim has to be ordered by the forms currently available on the WEB site……………/Sue will provide address

OBF Form does not address SPNP- Direct trunk establishment

Proposal from AT&T

Loop plus Number Portability

ASR form - for Loops

OBF form - for Number Portability

MCI to determine

TCG to determine

Sprint - OBF LSR

GTE - OBF LSR

WorldCom - to determine

Firm Order Confirmation discussion, will provide order number only

IVR - Ameritech provided information that they receive in Illinois approximately 100 Trap/subpeona/etc requests per week for approximately 300 telephone numbers

NXX-X Ed Elkin

Ed Elkin (AT&T) presented Penn Pfautz's (AT&T) NXX-X/LRN overview that he gave to the IL Steering Committee on 4/24/97.

Issues:

  1. Numbers Administration
  2. Pre-port block of TNs, versus port-on-demand
  3. Vendor capacity for NPA NXX-X/LRN in switches and SCPs.
  4. Snap Back

Next, the Operations Committee reviewed the Inter-Company process flows to see the effects NXX-X/LRN has on them.

PROVISIONING PROCESS
  1. Using the assumption that the TNs are pre-ported in blocks, vice porting-on-demand.

This is a process for longer term, especially as it likely requires SMS and Internal development. Short-term process, for January 1998, should be structured to avoid LERG/SMS/Internal development. These proposals require NPAC SMS Committee evaluation, maybe this is minimal SMS impact.

New Process Flow:

Assume every switch has a LERG-assigned NPA NXX for LRN assignment

Assume only uncontaminated blocks of TNs are ported.

Assume NPAC SMS is developed to recognize the Block Holder.

Assume the First TN in the NPA NXX has ported. If not, do the Code Opening Process.

  1. Number Administration process has allocated TNs
  2. Number Administrator notifies NPA NXX owner/holder that blocks have been assigned. {NPA NXX owner/holder would use that information to update their Numbers Administration systems}.
  3. Block Assignee notifies NPAC of assignment, LRN, DPC/SSN, and other information of their block.
  4. NPAC initiates an update process of its own database and associated LSMSs on a TN basis. The Mass Update is then downloaded from RSMS to the LSMSs.
  5. On a disconnect, the TN should snap-back to the Block Assignee. How to do that - via SMS development, or process/trust agreement?

Pro: Block Holder provides terminating vacant treatment for their TNs

Pro: TNs are tracked closely, and are possibly more readily available

Con: Bigger SMS

One scenario that causes problems; how to treat snap-back:

  1. (630) 513 LERG assigned to MCI
  2. (630) 513-1000-1999 allocated to AT&T
  3. (630) 513-1111 assigned by AT&T to Customer Jane
  4. Customer Jane ports from AT&T to MCI
  5. Choice: Is this treated as a "Port to Original (revert)" or is the Subscription Version left in SMS with MCI's LRN? Current SMS edits allow either to happen, it is driven by the "porting to original" flag.
  6. Then say that Customer Jane disconnects from MCI. Does MCI keep (630) 513-1111? Or does the TN go back to AT&T since that block was allocated to AT&T? If it is to go back to AT&T, how would Subscription Version creation occur, how would AT&T be assured that TNs it has allocated to it are returned to it, for disconnects it has no knowledge of?

If SMS tracks the 1000s block assignments (per the Assumption), then items such as snap-back and disconnects could be automated.

  1. Using the assumption that the TNs are ported-on-demand, vice pre-porting in blocks.

New Process Flow

Assume every switch has a LERG-assigned NPA NXX for LRN assignment

Assume NPAC SMS is developed to recognize the Block Holder.

Assume the First TN in the NPA NXX has ported. If not, do the Code Opening Process.

  1. Number Administration process has allocated TNs
  2. Number Administrator notifies NPA NXX owner/holder that blocks have been assigned. {NPA NXX owner/holder would use that information to update their Numbers Administration systems}.
  3. Block Holder ports the TN as LNP Port Type = LISP (Intra-Service Provider port)
  4. On a disconnect, the TN should snap-back to the Block Assignee. How to do that - via SMS development, or process/trust agreement?

Con: how does Block Holder get re-assurance that a TN they port-on-demand is not already in use by the Code Owner/Holder?

Con: LERG-assigned switch provides terminating vacant treatment

Con: Potential for Rating and Billing problems if the Code Holder is not involved in the porting process

Pro: Less big SMS


6-10-97

On Easel

Repair Contacts will be handled per interconnection agreements



The August and September meetings are on the following dates:

August 19,20

September 9, 10

Issue discussion

Will refer (issue #53) (Check issue number) to Don Baechlar Bellcore for assistance

Presentation: Dave Taylor - TSE

Handout - Inter-Service Provider LNP Process Automation




























Attachment:


DATE: June 11, 1997

TO: Alan D. Jones

NIIF Moderator

FROM: Midwest LNP Operations Team

SUBJECT: NIIF Issue #61

Dear Allan:

This is the Midwest LNP Operations Team's input to the NIIF on your issue #61, LNP Test Number Guidelines. The Midwest team sends this input to the NIIF for consideration of this issue. The Midwest team is comprised of the carriers planning to participate in portability in the Chicago MSA in addition to the other MSAs in the Midwest region (i.e., Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin). The Chicago MSA is the first MSA to become portable and will experience competition from Ameritech, AT&T, MCI, Sprint, TCG, and Worldcom.

In our review of the NIIF issue and the advance copy of Pacific Bell's contribution to the June NIIF meeting, we have concluded that: 1) State/region LNP implementation teams are already addressing the testing required for the initial deployments of LNP for ported NPA/NXXs; and 2) The existing NANC process flows care for on-going testing of ported numbers in a portable NPA/NXX.

In addition, the benefit of the contribution's suggestion of performing NXX testing vs. LRN testing is not clear.

Based on the foregoing, we do not find that NIIF work in this area will be beneficial to the industry and could in fact, be counterproductive as LNP implementation per the FCC Order is imminent.

If you have any questions, or would like to discuss this matter, please call Barry Bishop, Midwest LNP Operations Team Chair, at 312-220-8000.

Sincerely

Barry W. Bishop

Midwest Operations Chairperson