20060208 VSWG Conference Call Minutes
From CDGWiki
Call Date/Time:
Wednesday, February 8, 2006 4:00-5:30pm PST (GMT-8)
Contents |
[edit] Participants
The following people attended the call:
- Dan McCrackin – Sprint/Nextel
- Daniel Salek - QUALCOMM
- Travis Lathrop – Sprint/Nextel
- Nancy Hoyem - Telus
- Bryan Gurganus – QUALCOMM
- Michael Burns – Verizon
- Lee Valerius – Nortel
- Kim Brophy – Sprint/Nextel
- Devora DeMarco – Syniverse
- Kyoko Uchida – KDDI
- Taka Kobayashi - KDDI
- Ricardo Sarti - CDG
- Niki Chave – Telecom New Zealand
- Libby Mackay - QUALCOMM
[edit] Agenda & Discussion
[edit] Review of Last Meeting's Minutes
Last meeting we reviewed the deliverables for the tier 1 items, discussed tier 2 priorities, and briefly talked about the upcoming working group face-to-face meeting
[edit] Progress reports on tier 1 topics for voice and SMS priorities
- Calling Line ID with international MDN white paper - Bruce Fitzsimons (Lucent New Zealand)
- draft due 2/22 – no progress made as he is focusing on + code first.
- Network based plus code dialing survey development and paper - Bruce Fitzsimons (Lucent New Zealand)
- draft surveys due 2/22 – produced the vendor questionnaire but finishing up last details. The team requested they see a copy of the survey for reference.
- Voicemail access, indicator and retrieval - Daniel Salek (QUALCOMM)
- draft due 2/22 – in progress for 2/22 – Daniel is still seeking input. It is very difficult to come to conclusions without feedback from carriers so please complete the survey sent by Daniel if you haven’t already.
- SMS white paper - Daniel Salek (QUALCOMM)
- A draft is being reviewed now. Plans to have a copy out to the team members to review before the next meeting.
- SMS roaming partner qualification form - Dave Grootwassink (VeriSign)
- Partially complete but still shooting for 2/22.
- SMS test plan -Dave Wittekind (Sprint)
- Dave has received two test plans to use as a foundation and will have a draft on 2/22. This plan will focus on service functionality. The billing test plan will be harder to do because billing hasn’t been fully defined. If people are hoping for detailed billing tests it may be disappointing. This will focus on end user test plans.
- Coverage exchange - Travis Lathrop(Sprint)
- Travis completed the mapping questionnaire and this was distributed to the team last week. As requested, Travis is looking for your feedback by February 17 so the results can be discussed on the 2/22 call.
- X0 to X2 CIBER record migration - Gepsie Cox(Cibernet)
- Kyle Spinks provided a rough draft and Gepsie will now support the team on this topic. The draft was sent to the team for review on February 8 with comments requested back to me (lmackay@qualcomm.com) and Gepsie (gcox@cibernet.com) by March 1. Below are responses from Kyle to my inquiries. You may have the same questions:
- Question 1: Cibernet also stated that X0 records will no longer be valid for CIBER exchange after this time. What does this last sentence mean? Are there truly no carriers sending out true X0 records or was this statement not enforced?
- Cibernet answer 1: Cibernet has no mechanism to identify operators using incorrect formats and to force them to change their systems. However, as owner of the CIBER intellectual property, Cibernet can state what the "official" rules are regarding record formats and contents. In this case, we have said that CIBER X0 records are no longer valid after March, 2006, and this allows an X2 operator to reject X0 records coming in, and the X0 operator would have no recourse--they just wouldn't get paid for the calls they have served.
- Furthermore, if a major dispute arises from rejection of X0 records, Cibernet would support the X2 operator, and we believe that arbitrators would do the same. In the past when we have been involved in similar disputes regarding rule interpretation, the side that is violating the rules usually backs down. The point of our statement to the industry last year was to make it understood that anyone continuing to send X0 records was taking a chance because their partner could refuse to accept the records. So while we don't have an active enforcement, the industry will be able to enforce this themselves, using the rules that we have put in place.
- Question 2: During the initial implementations of the X2 records, many of the non-X2 operators requested loosening of the validation rules so that their records could pass edits when converted from other formats. Now that X0 records are no longer valid for exchange, these loosened rules may no longer be necessary. Because non-native X2 records frequently pass edits but lack some of the allowed information, Cibernet will work with the operators and data clearinghouses to tighten the X2 edit rules so that records lacking information will be rejected more often. Is there any value to the reader in listing the rules which were loosened and may now be tightened? I suggest this because making these edits was sited as the second of two deliverables for this topic with the first being this paper.
- Cibernet answer 2: At this point, I don't know exactly which rules were loosened and which ones could be tightened. We'll need feedback from the users to ensure that we don't change things in a way that causes problems, as changes made over the last five years can have ripple effects if we change them back without checking with the operators.
- Question 3: Operators requiring the complete X2 data set can require roaming partners to create “native” CIBER 2.5 records rather than converting from another format. Is there any value in listing which carriers still produce X0 records? If so, what is the value in knowing this and can we get a list?
- Cibernet answer 3: The group can produce a listing of those operators still using X0 records or using TAP--the DCHs know who is producing X0 records and who isn't. Such a list would probably be helpful, as it would allow operators to pick partners who can send them the records they expect. It would probably also push the lagging companies to upgrade their systems. However, this might be seen as incendiary, as it would publicly highlight the operators who do not conform to the standard. I'd look for the operators to tell us if this is acceptable.
Additional deliverables were identified:
- Issue - There is no CIBER edit to reject X0 records.
- Action - Devora took the action to discuss this with Gepsie and to ask CIBERNET for an edit. Carriers requested a very short timeline for when X0 records will be rejected although the timeline will likely be longer then what is being requested. Devora will pursue this with CIBERNET.
- Issue - how to deal with carriers who do produce X2 records but populate them incorrectly.
- Proposed solution - Put together a quick overview on how to populate the MDN. A future addition to this paper would be what fields to reference by vendor type. Nancy Hoyem of Telus Mobility agreed to help and the group agreed this should come from Cibernet.
- Action – Libby to find out if Gepsie Cox can satisfy this request.
- Devora DeMarco of Syniverse took the action to provide high level stats on percentage of carriers are CIBER 2.0 versus 2.5. Here is the speedy response:
- "Currently we have 36 customers who are still sending CIBER 2.0 records. Everyone is able to receive CIBER 2.5. Out of the 36, nine of them would be what I consider to be “international roaming” customers. We are aware of several customers moving to CIBER 2.5 by the March date so this number could dramatically decrease within the next 30 days."
- Robin Thomas of Syniverse noted that "Of the nine carriers that we consider to be International Roaming customers, we have not been given any warning as to whether they plan to start sending CIBER 2.5 by March 16, 2006. The few that have told us they are trying to create CIBER 2.5 by the industry date are located in the North American Numbering Plan."
- Net means there are about 9 international roaming carriers that are still producing CIBER 2.0 records and we don’t now when or if they plan to begin to produce 2.5 records.
===Standardized TDS progress update=== - Libby Mackay (QUALCOMM): The document is in progress with a draft expected for review during the March IRT. Michael Burns requested the team get a copy of the current draft which is available on the VSWG Standardized TDS Page. No action required by the team at this time as the document is not yet complete.
[edit] Announcements
- Reminder about priority survey #2 due Friday, February 17 (Clarification of WIN topics: "Prepaid using WIN" and "short codes using WIN" are not the same work item and should be considered separately).
- IRT working group - Several team members are planning on attending the working group meeting in Cabo San Lucas. Suggested schedule appears below:
March 21, Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, 9-noon
|
[edit] Next Meeting
Conference Call February 23 - 5:00 GMT/UTC - Note the different time for this specific call to accommodate the request of participants around the world.
| Main | About | Work Items | Whiteboard | Meetings | Documents |
