LSOP COMMITTEE
ISSUE 2233 TASK FORCE INTERIM MEETING
JANUARY 17-18, 2002
PAGE 1
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Co-Issue Champion and Task Force Leader Jim Whinn of Verizon and
LSOP Co-Leader Christine Cole of Verizon welcomed attendees.
Participants performed self-introductions.
Attendees are listed in
attachment lc011702tfiman.pdf.
THURSDAY, JANUARY 17, 2002 DISCUSSIONS
OBJECTIVE
Mr. Whinn stated that his objective for this two-day task force effort was
to prepare the contribution so that it would be able to be worked by the
full LSOP Committee at OBF 77.
ATTACHMENT 2233AT.DOC
Mr. Whinn led participants through a review of attachments associated
with this Issue provided in attachment 2233at.doc.
Participants
identified candidates for archive at the end of this meeting.
The attachment was subsequently updated to show those attachments
retired to the Issue’s archive zip file.
2233A1V2.DOC – ARCHIVED – SEE 2233A2V4.DOC
Mr. Whinn provided a diskette copy of BellSouth’s comments he had
received immediately prior to this meeting by email, file name
2233a1v2.doc. Mr. Whinn advised that attachment 2233a1.doc had
been incorporated into the 2233a2 proposed Change Management
Process (CMP) Guidelines, and that subsequently the 2233a1.doc had
been retired to the Issue’s archive zip file (2233archive.zip). Mr. Whinn
was therefore concerned that the Task Force needed to review all of
BellSouth’s concerns or comments.
Monet Topps of SBC volunteered to compare this contribution to the
proposed guideline language in 2233a2 during the CMP Guidelines
discussions and would address any discrepancies as the Task Force
conducted their review.
Agreement: At the end of the meeting, participants agreed that the
proposed guideline had incorporated all agreed upon concepts and
116105386
LSOP COMMITTEE
ISSUE 2233 TASK FORCE INTERIM MEETING
JANUARY 17-18, 2002
PAGE 2
issues, and the contribution 2233a1v2.doc was retired to the Issue’s
archive zip file (2233archive.zip).
ATTACHMENT 2233A3V1.DOC – ARCHIVED – SEE 2233A2V4.DOC
Mr. Whinn led participants through a review of 2233a3.doc, a
contribution from AT&T containing proposed milestone timelines.
Agreement: Participants agreed that the content in contribution
2233a3v1.doc would be transferred to the format proposed in
contribution 2233a9.doc and added to the proposed CMP Guidelines
documented in attachment 2233a3 as Appendix D. Participants agreed
that the contribution 2233a3v1.doc would be retired to the Issue’s
archive zip file (2233archive.zip).
ATTACHMENT 2233A4.DOC– ARCHIVED – SEE 2233A2V4.DOC
Mr. Whinn led participants through a review of 2233a4.doc, a
contribution from BellSouth.
Co-Issue Champion Mike Usry of Sprint indicated that there might need
to be forms included in the process after the review of the CMP
Guidelines had been completed. Participants agreed to review the need
for this form again at the end of the meeting.
Agreement: At the end of the meeting, participants agreed that the
proposed form would not be used, and the contribution 2233a4.doc was
retired to the Issue’s archive zip file (2233archive.zip).
ATTACHMENT 2233A5.DOC – ARCHIVED – SEE 2233A2V4.DOC
Mr. Whinn led participants through a review of the contribution
2233a5.doc.
Co-Issue Champion Steve Moore of Sprint indicated that there are
actually two existing processes in the industry. A more formal “form”
approach and companies that do a type of “pole” or “ballot” process. Mr.
Moore recommended that the Task Force hold this contribution for
subsequent discussion after a determination has been made regarding
whether forms would or would not be required.
116105386
LSOP COMMITTEE
ISSUE 2233 TASK FORCE INTERIM MEETING
JANUARY 17-18, 2002
PAGE 3
Agreement: At the end of the meeting, participants agreed that the
proposed form would not be used, and the contribution 2233a5.doc was
retired to the Issue’s archive zip file (2233archive.zip).
ATTACHMENT 2233A6.DOC – ARCHIVED – SEE 2233A2V4.DOC
Mr. Whinn led participants through a high level discussion regarding
attachment 2233a6.doc.
Participants agreed to return to this contribution later in the Task Force
meeting after discussion of the proposed Guidelines documented in
attachment 2233a2 had been completed. Peggy Rehm of NightFire
volunteered to compare this contribution to the proposed CMP
Guidelines language in 2233a2 during discussions and would address
any discrepancies as the Task Force conducted their review.
Agreement: At the end of the meeting, participants agreed that the
proposed guideline had incorporated all agreed upon concepts and
issues, and the contribution 2233a6.doc was retired to the Issue’s
archive zip file (2233archive.zip).
ATTACHMENT 2233A7.DOC – ARCHIVED – SEE 2233A2V4.DOC
Mr. Whinn led participants through a high level discussion regarding
attachment 2233a7.doc.
Agreement: At the end of the meeting, participants agreed that the
proposed guideline had incorporated all agreed upon concepts and
issues, and the contribution 2233a7.doc was retired to the Issue’s
archive zip file (2233archive.zip).
ATTACHMENT 2233A8.DOC – ARCHIVED – SEE 2233A2V4.DOC
Mr. Whinn led participants through a review of the contribution
attachment 2233a8.doc.
Agreement: At the end of the meeting, participants agreed that the
proposed guideline had incorporated all agreed upon concepts and
issues, and the contribution 2233a8.doc was retired to the Issue’s
archive zip file (2233archive.zip).
116105386
LSOP COMMITTEE
ISSUE 2233 TASK FORCE INTERIM MEETING
JANUARY 17-18, 2002
PAGE 4
ATTACHMENT 2233A9.DOC – ARCHIVED – SEE 2233A2V4.DOC
Mr. Whinn led participants through a review of the contribution
2233a9.doc. It was determined that the layout would be acceptable, but
not the content.
Agreement: Participants agreed that the content in contribution
2233a3v1.doc would be transferred to the format proposed in
contribution 2233a9.doc and added to the proposed CMP Guidelines
documented in 2233a2 as Appendix D. Participants agreed that the
contribution 2233a9.doc would be retired to the Issue’s archive zip file
(2233archive.zip).
ATTACHMENT 2233A10.DOC – ARCHIVED – SEE 2233A2V4.DOC
Mr. Whinn led participants through a review of the contribution
attachment 2233a10.doc.
Agreement: Participants agreed that Local Service Ordering Guidelines
(LSOG) milestone dates would not be required in the CMP Guidelines.
Participants agreed that the contribution 2233a10.doc would be retired
to the Issue’s archive zip file (2233archive.zip).
ATTACHMENT 2233A11.DOC – ARCHIVED – SEE 2233A2V4.DOC
Mr. Whinn led participants through a review of the contribution
attachment 2233a11.doc. It was determined that the contribution would
be incorporated into the working draft of the CMP Guidelines
documented in 2233a2, and that placement would be immediately
following the heading “Changes to Existing Specifications”.
Participants transferred the information from 2233a11 into the
aforementioned location. Task Force participants worked the language of
that contribution within the proposed CMP Guidelines as documented in
2233a2.
On Friday morning, January 18, 2002, Peggy Rehm of NightFire provided
documentation wording updates for sections that had not been reviewed
on Thursday, January 17, 2002 in contribution 2233a11v2.doc. The
applicable revised documentation was overlaid into the working
document, and the Task Force continued to work the language of that
116105386
LSOP COMMITTEE
ISSUE 2233 TASK FORCE INTERIM MEETING
JANUARY 17-18, 2002
PAGE 5
contribution within the proposed CMP Guidelines, as documented in
2233a2.
Agreement: Participants agreed that the contributions 2233a11.doc and
2233a11v2.doc would be retired to the Issue’s archive zip file
(2233archive.zip).
ATTACHMENT 2233AI.DOC
Mr. Whinn led participants through a review of the Issue 2233 action
items documented in 2233ai.doc. The action items that remain open are
addressed below.
Action Item 1 Discussions
Action item 1 was held in open status, but was discussed by the Task
Force participants.
ACTION ITEM #1
Ask of all customers – are 5 calendar days sufficient for customer review of the change
management meeting agendas?
RESPONSIBLE:
All participants
DUE: OBF 77
Status: OPEN
Several participants felt strongly that a minimum of seven days would be
required for the review period. Mr. Usry clarified that the need for a
minimum of 7 calendar days stems from the need for a customer, who
has not previously seen the agenda, to have enough time to understand
the actual content of the Change Management Meeting’s Agenda.
During the discussion of the time required for review, Task Force
participants further identified that the content of a Change Management
Meeting Agenda should include detailed information, not just bullet
information.
Agreement: The Task Force reached consensus that there would be a
minimum of 7 days required for the review period. However, it was also
agreed that the action item should remain pending for other participants’
feedback at OBF 77.
Action Item 5 Discussions
Action item 5 was discussed briefly by the Task Force participants.
116105386
LSOP COMMITTEE
ISSUE 2233 TASK FORCE INTERIM MEETING
JANUARY 17-18, 2002
PAGE 6
ACTION ITEM #5
Develop timeline for Industry Guideline changes with respect to issue 1581.
RESPONSIBLE: Issue Champions
DUE: OBF 76
RESPONSE: 01/17/02 Contribution 2233a10.doc resolved this action item.
Status: CLOSED
Agreement: Participants determined that the contribution 2233a10.doc
resolved this action item, and that the action item should have been
closed at OBF 76. The action item resolution was noted and the action
item status was updated to “closed”.
On Friday, January 18, 2002, Task Force participants opened six new
action items for this Issue, which are captured in the notes following, as
well as in 2233ai.doc, and were assigned the new Actions Item numbers
of 8 - 13.
ATTACHMENT 2233A2 DISCUSSIONS
Mr. Whinn led participants through a review of the CMP Guidelines draft
documented in attachment 2233a2v2.doc. All Task Force updates over
the remainder of this two-day meeting would be documented in
attachment 2233a2v3.doc.
Highlighted Text Review
Mr. Whinn explained that the 2233a2v2.doc contribution contained
highlighted text that the Task Force needed to review for acceptance as
the first step of this review process.
The following items were reviewed:

Introduction highlighted text was accepted.

Scope highlighted text was accepted.

Highlighted text referencing the new “Appendix A” created from the
action item 7 response text was accepted.

Page 19 highlighted text was accepted.

Deletion of Appendix A2 and highlighted text was accepted.
OSS Connectivity Rules & Policies
During discussion of the highlighted text, Andy Fitzsimmons of AT&T
suggested that the CMP Guidelines should include rules and policies
116105386
LSOP COMMITTEE
ISSUE 2233 TASK FORCE INTERIM MEETING
JANUARY 17-18, 2002
PAGE 7
governing interconnection for Operations Support Systems (OSS)
connectivity.
Agreement: Task Force participants agreed that the suggested
information would be outside the scope of this issue, and would therefore
require that Mr. Fitzsimmons submit a new OBF Issue.
2233a2 Page by-Page Review
Mr. Whinn led participants on a page-by-page review of the entire
document, one section at a time.
Introduction Section
Participants modified the Introduction to add a reference to the LSOG as
documented in attachment 2233a2v3.doc
Scope Section
Participants reviewed this section and approved modifications as
documented in attachment 2233a2v3.doc.
Participants had a lengthy discussion regarding the scope of this
document, particularly concerned with the words that address
maintenance activities in a post implementation environment.
Participants also discussed the appropriateness of removing the
reference to manual processing that had been implemented at the
August 2001 Task Force meeting.
Agreement: Participants agreed that the electronic/manual process
wording and the maintenance language should be revisited after the
remainder of the documentation had been reviewed.
On Friday, January 18, 2002, participants continued to express concern
over the wording of this section. The following new action item was
opened to address these concerns.
ACTION ITEM #8
ESTABLISHED: 01/18/02
Review SCOPE of document to determine whether it reflects the body of the document
as revised by the committee.
RESPONSIBLE:
All companies
DUE: OBF 77
RESPONSE:
116105386
LSOP COMMITTEE
ISSUE 2233 TASK FORCE INTERIM MEETING
JANUARY 17-18, 2002
PAGE 8
ACTION ITEM #8
Status: OPEN
Managing the Change Management Process Section
Participants approved modifications as documented in attachment
2233a2v3.doc.
Daryl Schulz of Accenture/Launch New requested clarification regarding
the wording in this section for the terms ‘customer’ and ‘provider’.
Participants discussed the terminology at some length, identifying that
there was no distinction for a Service Bureau in the Guidelines.
Agreement: It was agreed that Mr. Schulz and Andy Fitzsimmons of
AT&T would work with other vendors present (Telcordia and NightFire) to
draft a proposed Service Bureau definition for the contribution.
Agreement: After a lunchtime vendor caucus, participants agreed that
there would be no need to add the Service Bureau definition.
Meetings Section
Participants approved modifications as documented in attachment
2233a2v3.doc.
Andy Fitzsimmons of AT&T requested that flow through documentation
be added as an item for this section.
Agreement: Participants agreed that this would not be the appropriate
document for that type of information.
Type of Interface Activities Section
Participants reviewed this section and approved modifications as
documented in attachment 2233a2v3.doc.
Mr. Usry questioned wording that indicates that the provider can
maintain up to two industry documents. Mr. Usry indicated that Sprint
would treat LSOG conversions as flash cuts, maintaining only one
version at any time. Ms. Usry expressed concern that the wording
proposed would not adequately convey that a provider might only
support one version.
116105386
LSOP COMMITTEE
ISSUE 2233 TASK FORCE INTERIM MEETING
JANUARY 17-18, 2002
PAGE 9
Agreement: Participants agreed that the wording adopted from the close
of Issue 1581 does address that concern and that no additional
clarification would be required.
Requirements Review Section
Participants reviewed this section and approved modifications as
documented in attachment 2233a2v3.doc.
Documentation Section
Peggy Rehm of NightFire had provided documentation recommendation
in attachment 2233a11.doc. This was transferred into the Guidelines as
a new section. Participants reviewed this section and approved
modifications as documented in attachment 2233a2v3.doc.
The participants completed a partial review of this section before the time
allocated for day one elapsed.
Agreement: Participants agreed to start the next morning on attachment
2233a2v3.doc with the new Documentation Section at the bottom of page
16.
DAY ONE ADJOURNMENT
Participants ended day one after completing a partial review of
attachment 2233a2v3.doc and the meeting was adjourned.
Second Day Agenda Adjustment
It was identified that many of the participants would need to leave earlier
than the agreed upon adjournment time of 5:00 PM on Friday, January
18, 2002 due to limited flight availability.
Agreement: In the interest of completing as much work as possible while
the majority of the Task Force was still available, participants agreed to
reconvene the following morning at 7:00 AM. Participants further agreed
that there would only be a 30-minute lunch break on Friday.
Future Meeting Agendas
LSOP Co-Leader Christine Cole of Verizon pointed out to participants
that leaving earlier than the published final day end time was becoming
116105386
LSOP COMMITTEE
ISSUE 2233 TASK FORCE INTERIM MEETING
JANUARY 17-18, 2002
PAGE 10
an unacceptable trend. Participants discussed the fact that scheduling
meetings to end on the final day of the meeting at 5:00 PM had proven to
be non-productive. It was identified that due to the airlines’ current
restriction of scheduled flights, and the now inordinate amount of time
one had to be at the airport in advance of a flight, ending at 5:00 PM
would no longer be feasible for face-to-face meetings.
Agreement: Participants agreed that no future LSOP General Session
and/or Interim Activity face-to-face meetings would be scheduled for a
final day ending later than noon.
FRIDAY, JANUARY 18, 2002 DISCUSSIONS
ATTACHMENT 2233A2 DISCUSSIONS
2233a2 Page-by-Page Review Continued
Mr. Whinn continued to lead participants on a page-by-page review of the
entire document, a section at a time.
Documentation Section
Participants started day two by completing the review stopped the
previous day at the Documentation Section bottom of page 16.
Peggy Rehm of NightFire provided documentation wording updates for
sections that had not been reviewed on Thursday, January 17, 2002 in
contribution 2233a11v2.doc. The applicable revised documentation was
overlaid into the working document, and the Task Force continued to
work the language of that contribution within the proposed CMP
Guidelines.
Participants reviewed this section and approved modifications as
documented in attachment 2233a2v3.doc.
Comment Cycle Section
Participants reviewed this section and approved modifications as
documented in attachment 2233a2v3.doc. After extensive conversation,
participants determined that the comment cycle information should not
only be in a separate section, but should also be contained with each
discreet activity section of the CMP Guidelines. The following new action
item was opened to address these concerns.
116105386
LSOP COMMITTEE
ISSUE 2233 TASK FORCE INTERIM MEETING
JANUARY 17-18, 2002
PAGE 11
ACTION ITEM #9
ESTABLISHED: 01/18/02
Will make sure that there is a section within each activity regarding Comment Cycle.
RESPONSIBLE: Issue Champions DUE: At or before OBF 77
RESPONSE:
Status: OPEN
Issue Log Section
Participants transferred the information regarding the Issue Log as a new
section addressing Issues Log in a more generic manner. Participants
reviewed this section and approved modifications as documented in
attachment 2233a2v3.doc.
Interface Testing
Participants reviewed this section and approved modifications as
documented in attachment 2233a2v3.doc.
Corroborative End-to-End Testing Discussions
Andy Fitzsimmons of AT&T requested corroborative end-to-end testing
references be added to the Guidelines to accommodate flow through
testing.
Task Force participants expressed concern that Mr. Fitzsimmons had
offered several new suggestions during this Task Force meeting that had
taken the participants by surprise. Participants requested that in the
future, AT&T provide an advanced copy of suggestions, such as those so
far presented at this meeting.
Mr. Fitzsimmons stressed that he was as entitled to make suggestions
and offer comments as other participant companies do, and if his
concerns were not addressed in the Task Force meeting, participants
could be assured that they would be addressed at the OBF General
Session.
Agreement: Participants agreed that this would not be the appropriate
document for corroborative end-to-end testing information.
116105386
LSOP COMMITTEE
ISSUE 2233 TASK FORCE INTERIM MEETING
JANUARY 17-18, 2002
PAGE 12
New Interface Testing
Participants inserted the proposed CTE Testing environment paragraphs
provided in the NightFire contribution 2233a6.doc. Participants reviewed
this section and approved modifications as documented in attachment
2233a2v3.doc.
Training Section
Participants reviewed this section and agreed that there were no
modifications required.
Post Implementation Management Section
Participants reviewed this section and approved modifications as
documented in attachment 2233a2v3.doc.
Attachment 2233a2 Path Forward
Participants completed the review of attachment 2233a2v3.doc. The
attachment version was updated to 2233a2v4.doc, and all track marks
were accepted to prepare the contribution for LSOP Committee review at
OBF 77.
Agreement: Participants agreed that attachment 2233a2v4.doc would be
the working contribution baseline of the CMP Guidelines for presentation
to the full LSOP Committee at OBF 77.
Agreement: Participants agreed the contributions 2233a2v2.doc and
2233a2v3.doc would be retired to the Issues archive zip file
(2233archive.zip).
ISSUE 2233 PATH FORWARD
Andy Fitzsimmons of AT&T opened discussion once again regarding the
intent of the documentation. Mr. Fitzsimmons shared the AT&T concern
that wording of this guideline could impact specific customer/provider
negotiation agreements that are currently in place.
Discussions evolved back to the scope of this document, and then
became focused on the actual meaning of the word “interface”, as used
throughout the proposed guideline.
116105386
LSOP COMMITTEE
ISSUE 2233 TASK FORCE INTERIM MEETING
JANUARY 17-18, 2002
PAGE 13
New Attachment 2233a12.doc
Mr. Usry offered a diskette contribution of a draft he had been preparing
to expand the Definitions Section of the guideline, hoping that his
definition of the various types of interfaces might alleviate some of the
Task Force’s concerns.
Agreement: Participants accepted this contribution and named the file
attachment 2233a12.doc. This new contribution was added to the
Issue’s attachment zip file (2233att.zip).
Additional Action Items for OBF 77
Participants identified all of the unresolved topics that Mr. Fitzsimmons’
concern had raised, and it was agreed that a larger overriding concern
regarding the intent of this Guideline had been identified.
The following new action items were opened to address the concerns
identified during these discussions.
Action Item #10
Established: 01/18/02
Investigate removal or rewording of the Production Stopped and Production Degraded
sections of the POST IMPLEMENTATION MANAGEMENT that is highlighted in
attachment 2233a2v4.doc to ensure that change management processes are
implemented when there are documentation changes.
Responsible: All
Due: At or before OBF 77
RESPONSE:
Status: Open
Action Item #11
Established: 01/18/02
Identify for the Scope Section a recommended list of items that this document does
and does not cover.
Responsible: All
Due: OBF 77
RESPONSE:
Status: Open
Action Item #12
Established: 01/18/02
Provide your definition recommendation(s) for “Interface”, and identify the
sections/paragraphs that your definition would impact in the working contribution
(attachment 2233a2v4.doc).
Responsible: All
Due: OBF 77
RESPONSE:
Status: Open
Action Item #13
116105386
LSOP COMMITTEE
ISSUE 2233 TASK FORCE INTERIM MEETING
JANUARY 17-18, 2002
PAGE 14
Action Item #10
Established: 01/18/02
Review definition contributions in Attachment 2233a12.doc and provide comments to
Issue Champions at or before OBF 77.
Responsible: All
Due: OBF 77
Status: Open
NEXT TASK FORCE ACTIVITY PLANNING
Participants agreed that due to the OBF LSOP General Session agreed
upon time limitation that supported only two hours of discussion per
Issue, there would continue to be a need to work on the CMP Guidelines
after OBF 77. Participants agreed upon the following tentative schedule.
Type Meeting:
Face-to-Face Interim Meeting
Location:
St. Louis, MO – logistics to be determined
Host:
Monet Topps
Attendees:
Task Force Only
Admin Support:
Not Required
Dates/Times:
April 10, 2002 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM CST
April 11, 2002 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM CST
April 12, 2002 8:00 AM – 12:00 PM CST
Objective(s):
Finalize the 2233a2v4.doc to bring to the full LSOP
Committee.
Agreement:
Participants agreed that the Issue Champions would
request LSOP Committee approval for this tentative meeting at OBF 77.
The pending approval scheduling form 2233tfim.doc is located in the
Issue’s attachment zip file (2233att.zip).
There was no further business identified and the meeting was adjourned.
VIRTUAL MEETING NOTES DISTRIBUTION
These meeting notes are submitted by Donna Martin, Cap Gemini
Telecom Media & Networks U.S., Inc., LSOP Administrator, and have
been reviewed and approved for distribution by:
Jim Whinn
Verizon,
Issue 2233 Task Force Leader,
LSOP Committee
116105386
Steve Moore
Sprint – Primary Company Contact,
Issue 2233 Co-Champion, LSOP
Committee
LSOP COMMITTEE
ISSUE 2233 TASK FORCE INTERIM MEETING
JANUARY 17-18, 2002
PAGE 15
Jason Kempson
(for Deb Christopher)
Telcordia Technologies,
Issue 2233 Co-Champion, LSOP
Committee
116105386
Mike Usry
Sprint,
Issue 2233 Co-Champion, LSOP
Committee