Wholesale: Products & Services

Archived System CR SCR111102-03 Detail

Status History

Project Meetings

January Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that AT&T Consumer is cutting to 14.0 on February 14th and asked that the CR remain in CLEC Test until February CMP.

-- December 17, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked that this CR remain open. This CR remains in CLEC Test.

November 20, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR would be implemented with the IMA 14.0 Release on December 8, 2003.

September 19, 2003 IMA 14.0 High-Level Walk-thru Meeting Minutes Excerpt:

Functionality Description: LSR submitted using the error override feature would follow the manual flow and display a new override indicator to have the request drop to manual. The CLEC will request reject override functionality for a GUI LSR via a drop-down list. In IMA EDI, reject override functionality will be made available via a new field in the 850 and 860 transactions. In either case, the CLEC will be given a choice of 'Override' or 'Override with Fax', 'Override with Fax' will make every attempt to process the LSR within IMA. If, IMA is unable to process, the LSR will be faxed automatically to IIS. The CLEC will be notified via a LR notice that further communications regarding the LSR should be directed to ISC. If an LSR is faxed to IIS, the same format will apply for both GUI- and EDI-originated requests. Products: All

Forms Impacted: LSR

Fields: Implement a new override field both GUI and EDI LSRs "Reject Override field."

ACTs: N/A

Connie Winston - Qwest stated that this CR is requesting that Qwest accept an LSR when an edit or error is causing rejects that Qwest is in the process of fixing. Liz Balvin - MCI asked if it could be stated if the CR is being implemented for EDI, GUI, or both. Connie Winston - Qwest responded yes, we would add that information for the next walk-thru. Connie stated that she would also like to discuss the format.

Questions & Answers:

Q: Does this candidate allow GUI users to override upfront BPL error messages? A: Connie Winston - Qwest responded that is for GUI and EDI.

There were no additional comments, questions, or clarification requested.

Q: If the LSR is faxed to the llS will subsequent Qwest responses be sent via fax or email? A: Connie Winston - Qwest responded that IMA will automatically take care of faxing to the Center’s and that responses will be returned via the path chosen, it will behave like faxing. Monica Manning - Qwest stated that the CLEC would also get a confirmation from IMA and will say that the request was successfully faxed to IIS. Monica stated that the fax number could be typed on the LSR. There were no additional comments, questions, or clarification requested.

March 20, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion Regarding IMA 14.0 Prioritization: Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T reviewed the CR and asked if the LOE was correct. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this was the old LOE and stated that it would be updated before prioritization. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this CR should be for IMA Common and that Qwest is building a table that can be updated when needed to add or delete from it. Sue Stott/Qwest stated that Qwest still wants the LSR to be as clean as it can be but that this CR will have a fax component.

-- February 20, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that that business need is for a way to communicate with Qwest when there is a back end system issue or when we have a release go in and there is a bug with a sev 2 causing some pain. Connie stated that what Qwest would like to recommend is creating an overwrite field, that for pre-defined reasons, Qwest would allow the overwrite field to be marked. Connie stated that some edits would then be relaxed and it would fall into the Center’s. Connie stated that when we have an instance where there is a bug, and we see that you’re struggling with a condition, we’ll let that field be marked. A text window could pop up indicating that we could fax this over to the center (that you won’t have to re-type) and the centers will accept it. The CLEC would have to enter a fax number. Connie stated that Qwest tried to cover all bases and situations so that the CLECs can continue sending in LSRs. Connie stated that Qwest would like you to stay in IMA, as this is our way to meet your need. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked that when the text box pops up, is there a possibility that the FOC could be sent to the submitter via email; an online form that could be used. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that that would be a significant change. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if Qwest anticipates that the text box would be rare. Connie Winston/Qwest stated yes and that Qwest could not think of an example as to when this would occur. Sue Stott/Qwest stated that Qwest looked at trouble tickets from the past to see if any of those issues would have resulted in the fax option and none would have. Sue stated that Qwest’s goal is to keep it in IMA. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that for her own purpose, needs a ticket number in order to go thru the override, to prevent abuse. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we would like to prevent abuse and that there could still be rejects by the centers. Connie stated that after a release, if there is a problem, there has to be a ticket. Connie stated for the daily occurrances,, we would not require that a ticket be opened. Connie stated that in general I think the CLECs want it to flow through too, they don’t want it falling out, they want it to go through process. Connie stated that if the center’s see abuse, you could get a reject back. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that with this new definition, the CR needs to be clear in the title. Stephanie Prull/McLeod asked if faxed, how will the confirmation be received. Connie Winston/Qwest stated via fax, once you enter the fax world. Candy Skaff/Eschelon asked if they could get a message that it was sent via fax. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that if this candidate makes it into 14.0, Qwest will look into that. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that she would revise the CR title. Kit Thomte/Qwest stated that the action item is now closed.

-- January 16, 2003 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the meeting was held with the CLEC Community. Connie stated that at that meeting it was agreed that Qwest would prepare options and provide details at the February Systems CMP Meeting.

- CLEC Community Meeting - January 9, 2003

Attendees: Byron Dowding/AllTel, Trina/Cox Communications, Nancy/Cox Communications, Sharon Van Meter/AT&T, Wayne Hart/Idaho PUC, Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon, Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T, Jonathan Spangler/AT&T, Ray Acevedo/Winstar, Nancy Curniffe/Winstar, Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest, Conrad Evans/Qwest, John Gallegos/Qwest, Cynthia Gomez/Qwest, Monica Manning/Qwest, Deb Roth/Qwest, Kit Thomte/Qwest, Rob Mitchell/Qwest, Connie Winston/Qwest, Sue Stott/Qwest, Lori Langston/Qwest

Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest advised that this CMP CR was discussed at the December Systems CMP Meeting and an off-line call was requested to possibly change the scope of this request, that is the purpose of this conference call. Peggy stated that this call will be for fact finding only and stated that solutions will not be offered on today’s call.

Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that Qwest would like to obtain additional information to better understand the exact problems and situations that are occurring that has prompted this change request for the email functionality. Peggy asked the CLEC Community what they are looking for the email functionality to help with. Peggy stated that previously there was a problem brought forward regarding address validation. Qwest may ask for clarity around that issue and ask for specific details surrounding other problems/situations. Qwest will then research and investigate those problems/situations brought forward today in order to determine an approach to help you with them.

Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest asked AT&T if they had anything to add before the start of the discussion. No comments were brought forward.

Connie Winston/Qwest stated that when this change request was originally discussed, the level of effort was determined to be rather large. That was due to the fact that we were trying to solve everything, every scenario. Qwest would like to better understand the most painful situations and problems to make this effort more manageable. Qwest’s goal is to create an environment that allows CLECs to send us LSRs. Qwest would like to ensure that the CLECs understand that the solution that will be implemented will never apply for when the system is completely down. Connie stated that IMA is rarely down, and when it is, Qwest works diligently to get it working. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that that sounds logical. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the solution would be for oddities, such as the address validation issue. Connie Winston/Qwest asked for other examples/situations in order to determine what needs to be done. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest would like to capture other reasons, in addition to address validation, that you want to utilize email functionality for LSRs.

Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that he is not sure what would be inclusive on a list. Jonathan stated that his criteria for the CR is if a CLEC populates the LSR, with the back-end systems working, then submits the LSR, IMA rejects the LSR and the reject is not fixable. Then the CLEC needs to fax the request in a specific format. Jonathan stated that an inclusive list is unknown. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she agrees with Jonathan Spangler/AT&T. Bonnie stated that she is not sure she wants to see an exhaustive list. Bonnie stated that after the 11.0 Release, Eschelon cannot submit a conversion order on a Centrex account without a BTN and that is a challenge. Bonnie stated that traditionally as a result of a patch or release, an edit that has been used in the past creates a problem that causes them to be unable to submit an LSR. Bonnie stated could be on a UNE-POTS order. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that situations cause more pain to some CLECs than to other CLECs. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that when Qwest assigns the severity level, the same level is assigned for all CLECs and that may not be appropriate. Bonnie understands that sometimes the address validation problems can’t be fixed.

Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that after a patch or a release goes in, things sometimes happen that Qwest did not anticipate. She would like a process to be used on an interim basis. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she does now have a general understanding and realizes that a list would not be easy to compile; problems are based depending on the release. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the CLECs can disagree with the assigned severity level by using the escalation process. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that she is aware and does understand that. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Allegiance and Eschelon had a problem with loop to loop conversion orders and a severity level of 1 was assigned, for a reason. Bonnie stated that if they had a useable option to get the LSRs submitted, this would not be on the top of the list. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she understands that a particular product could be more important to some CLECs then others. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that there could be multiple options after a release. Connie stated that there could be different solutions that could meet different needs, such as the ampersand in the address validation issue. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest is currently exploring opportunities in order to accept LSRs, such as relaxing edits to get LSRs through or sending to IIS. Connie asked the CLEC Community if those possible solutions were still worth exploring. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated yes. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that internal meetings have taken place to discuss potential solution. Connie asked the CLECs if they could provide examples of other daily types of problems. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that he could go back and ask for some. Jonathan stated that has address validation examples but they have been taken care of via a fax to Qwest. Jonathan advised that the fax solution is not something that AT&T wants to do very often, prefers to go through IMA EDI. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon agreed with Jonathan and stated that should only have to fax when there is no other way to get their LSRs through. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that she does believe that the CLECs would not abuse the fax option. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that they want flow through as much as Qwest does.

Sue Stott/Qwest stated that if the GUI is up and there is a problem, could give the option to route to whatever manual handling system that you have. It would come to Qwest as a fax even though the CLECs would not be faxing through a fax machine that you would walk over to.

Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that he would not want the email solution to have edits or rules. Jonathan stated that the email solution process should use the IMA format but needs a different channel, email or whatever, without rules that would reject orders. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that the email would be emailed to a Qwest faxing environment. IMA would send to a Qwest Center and the Qwest Center would use the same process as they currently use for faxes. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this is something for Qwest to look at but is not offering it as a solution at this time. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest has not worked through this in any depth and maybe it could be used when you would be going to the fax machine anyway. Connie stated that there would be no increase of faxes into the Qwest Center’s, would just come in a different format. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that that was correct. Connie Winston/Qwest asked if any other CLECs had any comments. No comments were brought forward.

Sue Stott/Qwest asked if the CLECs have a ‘top 10’ list. Sue stated that Qwest would like to look at the list to assist in the development of solution(s). Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that there is not much volume here. Jonathan stated that this does not happen very often so might not be able to provide a list. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest does not really need a list but does need the CLECs to walk through what the problems and scenarios are that Qwest needs to look into. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that the situations that would be provided are those already called into the IMA Help Desk. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that Qwest would query the IMA Help Desk. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that the CLECs would only use the solution if has a trouble ticket. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T asked to confirm if Qwest was going to find the information without Jonathan/AT&T providing examples. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that yes, we find through the IMA Help Desk. Connie Winston/Qwest if there were any questions from the Qwest Process Specialists. Cynthia Gomez/Qwest asked how notifications and confirmations were expected back. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that he would expect them back in the same format; the email format, to the LSR submitters email address. Jonathan stated that he knows that this may not happen. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that this would change the process, if goes through IIS, so would need to look at that when we look at potential solutions.

Connie Winston/Qwest asked for other comments or questions. None were brought forward.

Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that status would be provided at the January Systems CMP Meeting. Peggy stated that Qwest may not yet have potential solutions to offer, but a status would be provided.

- December 19, 2002 Systems CMP Meeting Discussion: Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said that he didn’t see a response on this CR Kit Thomte/Qwest stated that a response was sent to AT&T yesterday and showed that it was a fairly large effort. Connie Winston/Qwest said that effort would basically require a new interface and explained that behind the GUI there is a layer of edit logic that would have to be replicated. We would have to address every single field for an e-mail solution. We did provide another option to AT&T that is less expensive. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that he was unclear why this would require a new interface. IMA currently has an email functionality that allows you to click and convert a form that can be sent via e-mail. Connie Winston/Qwest said this functionality doesn’t invoke all the edits and we would literally have to walk through all the edits that IMA currently has. If we back down on some of the functionality that you’ve listed, then certainly we can create something less expensive. Jonathon Spangler/AT&T said that AT&T did submit this CR under the premise of it being systems or product/process change Connie Winston/Qwest—if we did more of a form format (IMA not QLSOG) the centers were rejecting because it is not the form they are expecting. The centers could be trained to accept the IMA format. They’re currently not trained to accept the format. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said that’s actually all we need is if we can populate the form in the GUI and then fax it out and as long as the centers are prepped to accept that format, I think that works. A lot of the errors we are running into, address validation problems and it’s when we submit and it hits those edits and it rejects it. If we could just email it to submit the form, then that would work. Judy Schultz/Qwest asked if this CR needs to be processed as a Crossover. Connie Winston/Qwest said that there would be systems work depending how you want it. If you want to fax it that’s one thing, but if you want us to send it to IIS that’s IMA work. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if AT&T could provide some examples. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said that this goes back to the address validation problem. There are situations where we pull the CSR from the Qwest backend system and the CSR has an ampersand (&). When you try to use that information and submit it through the IMA GUI, IMA has edits that don’t accept the “&” and we have to correct it when it was pulled from a Qwest backend system. Instead of having to fill out an LSOG form to fax it in, we would drop it into an email and submit it to our own fax machine with Qwest’s fax number and it would go through the faxing route. The problem is that the fax was not accepting the format of the IMA GUI, they would only accept the LSOG format. Instead of doing this CR as written with this huge LOE, we could change it to have the centers accept the IMA GUI format. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if this gives you the ability to correct & and remove the '&' Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said that this is one example of a work around we are trying to develop. We don’t have the ability to do this with any number of back end system edits. That example specifically is when we call in to the help desk then get the address that’s correct, we still get a reject because it doesn’t match the address on the CSR. Connie Winston/Qwest stated since this is an occasional thing, and know you’d like to continue with the LSR flow. Switching back to the QLSOG form is unfamiliar and is somewhat more difficult. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said that is correct. Connie Winston/Qwest said that we can have an offline discussion about it, we were looking at having Qwest fax back the information. Judy Schultz/Qwest noted that we are up against the 13.0 prioritization window and asked if we would still need to prioritize this CR. Connie Winston/Qwest said yes because there would be systems changes. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that we have an LOE for the proposed solution that we had provided to AT&T. Sue Stott/Qwest said that it is not the same LOE, we’d have to revise it a little bit because you are discussing interactive behavior. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said that he doesn’t understand what the system edits are because if I’m looking for being able to download and then fax, why would edits need to be applied. Judy Schultz/Qwest stated that she would like the operation side to evaluate this. We do not want to implement something and do it wrong. She asked if everyone would agree to another clarification call to have IT re-evaluate and treat this CR as a late adder. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said yes. Kim Isaac/Eschelon asked if we were looking for the ability to fax in the Center. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said that is a simple way of describing it, yes. The problem is when we have attempted that it has been rejected because it is the incorrect form. Kim Isaac/Eschelon said that in past years they have accepted the IMA format. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that when we try to fax it only accepts a certain number of pages. The faxing option is really a roadblock as well. She also asked if other CLECs coull be involved in the follow up call. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said that this would not be a problem. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if we can get it resolved with the systems folks, if the IMA system causes the problem, if the order were submitted via fax in the IMA format, I think Qwest would be required to accept that. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said that Qwest is only seeing a fax from us, but for AT&T, we will be able to submit the order using our own email functionality. This should reduce the legibility rejects because we receive these via email and we won’t look for a piece of paper that could get thrown away. It seems like it would just be Qwest seeing a new format. Judy Schultz/Qwest said that it seems like there is enough interest. When we schedule the meeting we’ll include everyone and then if there are systems impacts this will be a late adder. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if you will mark the LSR for manual handling, will it still reject. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said that it still rejects. We know it will happen inevitably for flow through purposes but we want to be able to circumvent. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that she didn’t realize that you had edits when manual handling was marked. Connie Winston/Qwest said that we still have edits for data integrity issues. We have explored relaxing some edits, but it’s very risky to allow that kind of data into the database. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon asked if there were thoughts being given to get Qwest to correct the CSR. This is broader than the address and the corresponding CSR. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T said that because it’s only one account, they are not willing to push the issue. If we really escalate, they will do it, however this is a two-day interval that we have to wait on, so that delay’s our submittal. Judy Schultz/Qwest said that the status of this CR will remain in evaluation, concerning the holidays let’s give a range of dates to cover as many people as possible. Let’s wait and have the meeting before updating the CR. Kit Thomte/Qwest said that this CR will remain a System CR and we’ll have this as a late adder if there are systems impacts, otherwise it will change to a crossover.

11/19/02 Clarification Meeting SCR111102-03 Ability for Qwest to accept LSRs via the email functionality within IMA GUI.

Introduction of Attendees: Jonathan Spangler-AT&T, David Belanger-AT&T, Shonna Pasionek-Qwest, Peggy Esquibel-Reed-Qwest, John Gallegos-Qwest, Monica Manning-Qwest

Review Requested (Description of Change) Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest reviewed the description from the CR: AT&T would like the ability to submit LSRs to Qwest via the IMA email function. Expected Deliverable: Ability for AT&T to fill out in IMA an LSR request, provide a corresponding email address for responses and submit the LSR via the IMA email function. All responses from Qwest would be sent to the email address provided on the LSR. This would provide Qwest and CLECs an additional option for IMA system troubles other than faxing. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that a scenario would be for UNE-P. AT&T is having an issue in that the only real system workaround, when there is a discrepancy when performing address validation, is to call the Help Desk and they give the fax option. Jonathan stated that this is difficult to manage and that Qwest sometimes still rejects it because Qwest cannot read it. Other issues include jeopardy tracking and managing responses. Jonathan stated that AT&T would like to submit email’s. Jonathan stated that some advantages would be that it would be legible for Qwest and it would be make it easier for the CLECs to manage. Jonathan stated that IMA does currently have email functionality but is strictly for submitting LSRs to the IMA Help Desk to see if there are field error’s. Would like the email functionality expanded to accept LSRs. John Gallegos/Qwest asked if the request is limited to trouble situations only. David Belanger/AT&T stated would like open to all situations. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T stated that would be a reference to production support issues within the CMP process. John Gallegos/Qwest asked if this is for production support issues or for all LSRs? Jonathan Spangler/AT&T responded that this request is for all LSRs. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that the CR needs to be revised to indicate that is for all LSRs. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T agreed to send the revised CR to CMPCR@qwest.com with a copy to Peggy Esquibel-Reed at Qwest. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T asked if this would be in the IMA prioritization. John Gallegos/Qwest stated that he believes so but that Qwest needs to look further into the request. Jonathan Spangler/AT&T asked if this CR would be discussed in December. Peggy Esquibel-Reed/Qwest stated that this CR is scheduled to be presented, by AT&T, at the December Systems CMP Meeting.

Confirmed Interfaces: IMA GUI

Confirmed Products: LNP, Private Line, Resale, Unbundled Loop, UNE Loop, and UNE-P

Confirm Right Personnel Involved - All appropriate personnel participated in the clarification meeting.

Establish Action Plan - Jonathan Spangler/AT&T to present this Change Request at the December 19 Systems CMP Meeting. Qwest will provide a response by December 12.

There were no additional questions or comments.

CenturyLink Response

REVISED DRAFT RESPONSE December 18, 2002

RE: SCR111102-03 Ability for Qwest to accept LSRs via the email functionality within IMA GUI.

The email below constitutes a deny response for CMP request SCR111102-3 to have the ability for Qwest to accept LSRs via the email functionality within IMA GUI.

The combined systems and operational costs to implement the CR are estimated in excess of $3 million. Therefore, the reason for deny is economically not feasible.

Sincerely, Qwest

DRAFT RESPONSE December 11, 2002

RE: SCR111102-03 Ability for Qwest to accept LSRs via the email functionality within IMA GUI.

Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of AT&T's Change Request SCR111102-03. Based upon research that has been conducted following the Clarification meeting (held November 19, 2002) Qwest is still examining the issue. Qwest will continue to research the problem and provide an updated response at the December Systems CMP Meeting.

At the December 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