Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 8:22:07 -0500
From: "Nancy J. DeRoo " <>
Subject: 3/18 Meeting Minutes
Message-Id: <"11542052307991/33837
IN-DECTSAP"@MHS>
Attendance:
Barry Bishop Ameritech
Larry Vasquez AT&T
Mark Lancaster AT&T
Pam Carroll Northwest Central 911 system
Rick Jones INENA representative
Jeff Rodrigues Chicago 911 system
Jim Joerger MCI
Ed Elkin AT&T
Fred Rock Brooks
Sandiy Howard Brooks
Ron Bloom Ameritech
Carolyn Maddox Sprint
Deb Prather ICC
Nancy DeRoo Ameritech 911
Gene Valentine Ameritech
Conference Bridge
Judy Cortiana Pac Bell
Phil Hollar MCI
Mary Sharp SCC
We need all service providers to send representatives to the next meeting
armed with some answers (particularly those that also represent a 911
database).
Since the last meeting the 911 TELCO-Vendor conference took place in
Orlando, FL. At that meeting, the NENA Data Standards Technical Committee
held a sub committee study group to recommend standards for Service Provider
Local Number Portability. The draft document that they put together was
discussed at our meeting.
The recommendation by NENA is that the donor company provide an unlock
notification to the 911 database so that the new service provider can send
through their inward migration transaction and update the 911 database with
their information.
This recommendation is completely different from what this committee had
come up with at the February meeting. We originally had decided to take
back to our companies the idea of suppressing the disconnect order and
allowing the new service provider to overwrite the record in the 911
database. We need to come to a decision on how exactly, we will handle
updating the 911 databases. If we are going to accept this proposal, we
need to make that decision in the April meeting. It must be an agreement by
all companies.
On page 7 paragraph 1.6 we decided to remove the I transaction. The record
can't match anything on an I record.(the record doesn't exist to begin with
if we're doing an I).
1.7 The last sentence needs to be moved to 1.8. This is in the case where
customer has changed their mind at the last minute and the incumbent
provider needs to re-lock the record.
We did a timeline example :
Tu Wed Th Fr
___|20:00__|___02:00_____|____|____
port| info |
comp| to |
| ALI |
"M" extract "U"
transmitted transmitted
22:00 Central time is the cutoff point for the Ameritech 911 database to
accept extract files. (Mary Sharp of
SCC said to say approximately)
1:00 Central time is the time that file processing begins in the system.
The issue here is that the new information will go into an error file until
the "unlock" transaction comes
through.
We (all companies)send on a post completion basis, therefore an unlock can't
be transmitted until the actual completion
goes through.
It was agreed to that the "M" and the "U" should be shown as completed on
the date that the actual porting activity occurs. This information MUST be
passed along to all other groups within each of our companies that are in
control of passing the completions.
***** subject not discussed, but came to mind as I typed minutes****
ACTION ITEM: New database transmission links
Owner: ALL SERVICE PROVIDERS
All companies must think about how they will send a transaction (M) over to
a different 911 database. There are multiple 911 databases in Illinois, as
well as, the rest of the country. When two companies in their normal daily
business use different 911 databases, links must be established to transmit
the new service provider's "M" transaction to the opposite database(if this
is the case). The trunk groups from one service provider's end office into
the E911 tandem of the other company will take care of the routing portion.
Inter-company agreements, of course, would have to be established first.
ACTION ITEM: Company IDs
Owner: ALL SERVICE PROVIDERS
All companies must establish a 3-5 alpha-numeric ID and let their
appropriate 911 database companies know, so that the existing records may be
updated with the ID.(prior to testing
in July)
ACTION ITEM:Error code
Owner: SCC/GTE/SPRINT (911 database
providers)
Need an error code for unlocks that haven't occurred and "M" transaction
tried to overwrite existing record.
ACTION ITEM: Security lock/unlock flag
Owner:SCC/GTE/SPRINT (911 database providers)
When can 911 database providers change their software to actually lock or
unlock a 10 digit telephone number. Security exists at a different level
today.
ACTION ITEM: Report of unlocks that haven't occurred
Owner:SCC/GTE/SPRINT (911 database providers)
A report needs to be generated and sent to donor (maybe new also)service
providers that have not unlocked a record and the new provider has already
sent the "M" transaction. Other than telephone number,old service provider
name and date transaction sent, what else should be on this report?
THIS IS A TIMELY REPORT MUST BE LOOKED AT AND ACTION TAKEN IMMEDIATELY EVERY
DAY.
ACTION ITEM: When does each company do their extract for 911? After
completion? (should be)What hour of day does the extract get sent to 911?
Owner: ALL SERVICE PROVIDER
There is a timeliness involved in getting the 911 database updated after
order completion. There is a cutoff point that any 911 database accepts
file transfers. Then the procedure to process those files starts. If an M
was transmitted at 20:00 (see timeline)by new service provider and the donor
company sends through their extract at 0200, this is where an update error
could occur. Keep in mind the record already exists in the database but,
with a different company ID.
The next meeting will start later than usual, as a request to do so was made
at this meeting, so the date is on April 7th, 10:00-5:00, room 413 at the
350 Orleans address. Same conference bridge will be available as the test
team meetings, 312-814-8097. We probably won't go 'til 5:00 but, the late
start will definitely put us out later
than usual.
Nancy
--