Transition Outreach and Education Plan Public Questions List 1 | Page The following table contains responses to written questions submitted through the comments feature on the LNPA Transition tab of the napmllc.org website, or the TOEP webcasts, for which the party submitting the question provided authorization to publish, provided the question (i) is of common interest to the NPAC Community, (ii) has not been previously asked and answered, and (iii) is not otherwise inappropriate. Date Submitter Organization Question / Response 8/10/2017 Bill Reidway Neustar Neustar Questions “as the NPAC” Q1 Is there a contingency plan for the event iconectiv is not able or willing to deliver, or service providers are unable to retrieve [the transaction report]? The report which iconectiv provides is supplemental to SPs own records. If iconectiv were unable to provide the report, then SPs would be expected to re-create the list of transactions. Q2 Will larger providers be given priority over smaller providers? Service Providers will all be treated equally; larger SPs will not be prioritized ahead of smaller providers. Q3 Will there be a test / dry run of the proposed rollback plan? A rollback simulation is not practical and is not planned. However, the report creation and distribution process will be tested, and Service Providers are expected to test their own internal resubmission processes as a preparatory measure. Q4 What will trigger the creation of NPA-NXX-X records for pooling? This is to be determined in discussions with the Pooling Administrator. Q5 Is there a plan to address inter-SP ports in conflict upon resubmission? Service Providers will need to coordinate porting activity with their peers during rollback to prevent inter-SP conflict. Note that these requests will already have been coordinated once so a second "re-coordination" should be manageable.
39
Embed
Neustar Questions “as the NPAC” Reidway - NAPM LLC · the Neustar NPAC notify PAS with work-item completion / deletion status, and is the PA expected to re-notify service providers
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Transition Outreach and Education Plan Public Questions List
1 | P a g e
The following table contains responses to written questions submitted through the comments feature on
the LNPA Transition tab of the napmllc.org website, or the TOEP webcasts, for which the party
submitting the question provided authorization to publish, provided the question (i) is of common
interest to the NPAC Community, (ii) has not been previously asked and answered, and (iii) is not
otherwise inappropriate.
Date Submitter Organization Question / Response
8/10/2017 Bill Reidway
Neustar Neustar Questions “as the NPAC”
Q1 Is there a contingency plan for the event iconectiv is not able or willing to
deliver, or service providers are unable to retrieve [the transaction report]?
The report which iconectiv provides is supplemental to SPs own records. If
iconectiv were unable to provide the report, then SPs would be expected to re-create the list of transactions.
Q2
Will larger providers be given priority over smaller providers?
Service Providers will all be treated equally; larger SPs will not be prioritized ahead of smaller providers.
Q3 Will there be a test / dry run of the proposed rollback plan?
A rollback simulation is not practical and is not planned. However, the
report creation and distribution process will be tested, and Service Providers are expected to test their own internal resubmission processes as
a preparatory measure.
Q4
What will trigger the creation of NPA-NXX-X records for pooling?
This is to be determined in discussions with the Pooling Administrator.
Q5
Is there a plan to address inter-SP ports in conflict upon resubmission?
Service Providers will need to coordinate porting activity with their peers
during rollback to prevent inter-SP conflict. Note that these requests will
already have been coordinated once so a second "re-coordination" should
be manageable.
Transition Outreach and Education Plan Public Questions List
2 | P a g e
Date Submitter Organization Question / Response
Q6
When Neustar restarts its NPAC a large volume of timers will expire,
particularly for pending SVs. Does the rollback plan account for any
database clean-up which may be necessary?
The assumption is that the timers will expire as they usually do exiting the
maintenance window. Service Providers should take the appropriate
actions in response to the timer expiration.
Q7
If large numbers of transactions are resubmitted to NPAC manually by the
service providers is there a plan to avoid / mitigate human error?
Service Providers would follow normal porting processes to resubmit
transactions in the event a rollback were required.
Q8
If providers build automated solutions for resubmitting transactions, is
there an expectation that they be throttled in any way, to ensure the LNP
ecosystem isn’t impacted by high volumes?
If Service Providers build automated processes they will be expected to
stay within the defined industry volumes. The NPAC would similarly be
expected to handle the volumes in the same manner as is done today.
Questions “as a Vendor and Service Bureau”
Q1 Should the rollback scenarios be considered temporary, permanent, or
should stakeholders plan for both possibilities?
Rollback should be considered a temporary state, to be resolved as rapidly
as is prudent.
Q2a For how long will providers be asked to keep records of transactions?
Service Providers are expected to retain records of transactions as per their
normal practices. They should be retained for rollback for a minimum of
one week after migration unless notified by the TOM.
Transition Outreach and Education Plan Public Questions List
3 | P a g e
Date Submitter Organization Question / Response
Q2b
Will iconectiv provide their reports only in the event of a rollback, or will they be generated automatically on a daily basis on iconectiv’s SFTP site?
iconectiv will post one or more reports for each participating Service Provider (that has successful transactions) to the SFTP site for download
only in the event of rollback. Note that these reports are intended to supplement, not replace, providers' own records.
Q3
When will the TOM provide details on all milestones and specific dates for
the additional rollback meetings?
The meetings and delivery schedule have been announced in the industry rollback presentations; this will continue in future presentations.
Q4a
How will providers that do not attend the TOM managed open conference bridge/WebEx be notified of a rollback decision?
Notification of a rollback decision will be provided via the open conference bridge, WebEx, and via iconectiv email to the primary contact of all
registered users.
Q4b Will iconectiv send reports directly to the NPAC or to Service Bureaus to
act on behalf of SPs?
iconectiv will post transaction reports for each participant Service Provider
to the SFTP server. All Users will be provided SFTP access and credentials as part of onboarding.
Q5
Can the TOM share the details of its 18-month feasibility study, detailing the options reviewed and criteria used to ensure that its proposed solution
was the most cost-effective and operationally efficient?
The TOM facilitated a series of joint reviews with iconectiv, Neustar, and
the NAPM throughout 2016/17 to develop and evaluate options. The results of this evaluation and NAPM decision have been shared in the various
TOEP sessions and Industry Rollback Working Sessions.
Q6
What protections, if any, are in place to guard against iconectiv being
Transition Outreach and Education Plan Public Questions List
4 | P a g e
Date Submitter Organization Question / Response
unable or unwilling to provide the necessary data for service provider
reflows?
The report which iconectiv provides is supplemental to SPs own records. If
iconectiv were unable to provide the report, then SPs would be expected to re-create the list of transactions.
Q7a
Can the TOM share the report specification availability, format, and testing period information?
This information was provided at the August Industry Rollback Working Session, please refer to the material posted at http://napmllc.org under the
LNPA Transition tab.
Q7b Will the reports be simple transaction logs, or will they have additional
information to compute dependencies and sequencing requirements? Will the reports at a minimum be time-sorted?
The reports will provide a detailed record of every successful transaction as described in the August Industry Rollback Session. The transaction report
specification package (containing the specification spreadsheet, a guide to understanding the spec, and an example file) was distributed 25 August to
all registered users.
Q7c
Will the testing period include providers testing the reports with their vendors and current NPAC?
iconectiv will test the report creation and distribution process with Service
Providers beginning in January 2018. Service Providers may involve other parties, including service bureaus, at their discretion.
Q7d
Will service bureaus and providers be included in the process design and
transaction report format specifications that iconectiv and the TOM will deliver?
Industry feedback regarding the report format and process is always
evaluated when received. The report process and format were designed by iconectiv at TOM request. Industry feedback was solicited at both the July
and August Industry Rollback Working Sessions. Feedback received as of
24 August, prior to release of the specification, was considered for
Transition Outreach and Education Plan Public Questions List
5 | P a g e
Date Submitter Organization Question / Response
inclusion.
Q7e
Will current NPAC validate that they can receive the reports iconectiv will
provide to each provider? Is there a test plan/dry run?
The NPAC does not receive Transaction reports, these are distributed to service providers. The NPAC will only be required to process porting
transactions as normal via CMIP, XML, MUMP, et al.
Q8a
How long may out-of-synch condition between the NPAC and LSMSs be tolerated?
Each SP should make its own determination as to when they are ready to
re-sync an LSMS with the NPAC. We expect that this will be region and Service Provider specific.
Q8b
How will vendors and service providers know that the roll-back is
complete?
A conference bridge and WebEx will be used to provide regular reporting on system status during each transition. These will be opened when
transition begins and will be maintained on an as-needed basis until the region(s) are accepted. In the event of rollback, these will be used to
provide regular reporting on rollback progress to all participants.
Q8c
If the LSMSs are not reconnected immediately, and some providers / service bureaus require an LSMS check for Old-SPID validation as part of
the pre-port activities for the re-flowed transactions, how will this be done?
Each SP should make its own determination as to when they are ready to re-sync an LSMS with the NPAC. We expect that this will be region and
Service Provider specific.
Q9a
Will the industry introduce any changes to standard processing?
No change to standard processing is planned.
Q9b
Will any regular NPAC activity be suspended while the reflow process is
Transition Outreach and Education Plan Public Questions List
6 | P a g e
Date Submitter Organization Question / Response
being executed?
We do not anticipate suspension of regular NPAC activity. However, we
anticipate that Service Providers may elect to prioritize completion of old
(re-flow work) ahead of new work during the period immediately following rollback.
Q10
Will service providers and service bureaus be expected to throttle re-flowed transactions, to avoid exceeding performance parameters in other SOAs /
LSMSs receiving broadcasts and notifications?
If Service Providers build automated processes they will be expected to stay
within the defined industry volumes. The NPAC would similarly be expected to handle the volumes in the same manner as is done today.
Q11
Is there a dry run planned for the selected approach?
A rollback simulation is not practical and is not planned. However, the
report creation and distribution process will be tested, and Service Providers are expected to test their own internal resubmission processes as
a preparatory measure.
Questions “as the Pooling Administrator”
Q1
Will the service providers request that PAS resubmit requests to create the
dash-X elements or will they ask the NPAC directly?
This is to be determined in discussions with the Pooling Administrator.
Q2
Will there be any need on the part of the PA to store, reprocess, or
distribute the NPAC work item history, or history of Part 1B and Part 5
records, as part of roll-back?
This is to be determined in discussions with the Pooling Administrator.
Q3
What, if any, coordination is required to ensure proper sequencing of
event processing as part of roll-back? For example, block modifications on
blocks which have not been activated, etc.
Transition Outreach and Education Plan Public Questions List
7 | P a g e
Date Submitter Organization Question / Response
This is to be determined in discussions with the Pooling Administrator.
Q4
When pooled block activations are processed by the Neustar NPAC will
the Neustar NPAC notify PAS with work-item completion / deletion
status, and is the PA expected to re-notify service providers via email, as
today?
In the event of a rollback, the Neustar NPAC and the PA is expected to
return to normal operations and process work in the usual manner.
Q5
How will constituents be notified that the roll-back process is complete,
and that all processing is back to business as usual?
A conference bridge and WebEx will be used to provide regular reporting
on system status during each transition. These will be opened when
transition begins and will be maintained on an as-needed basis until the
region(s) are accepted. In the event of rollback, these will be used to
provide regular reporting on rollback progress to all participants.
Q6
What is the TOM’s test planning and execution schedule for the rollback
solution?
A rollback simulation is not practical and is not planned. However, the report creation and distribution process will be tested, and Service
Providers are expected to test their own internal resubmission processes as a preparatory measure.
Transition Outreach and Education Plan Public Questions List
8 | P a g e
Date Submitter Organization Question / Response
8/16/2017 Syed
Mubeen Saifullah
Neustar Per your slide, if release B is scheduled to end mid-Dec ... how are we
starting to test mid-Nov? How will 7 weeks of testing for an XML SOA product end in Mid-December if any issues are discovered?
The testing schedule is dependent on the type of system: CMIP SOA or LSMS, XML SOA, and XML LSMS have slightly different timelines.
1) Neustar CMIP systems (7 in total) are expected to begin Release B testing
in mid-December (on or about 18 Dec). There is little testing to be done, only 1 week is estimated, to verify the MUMP and NPA Split test cases that
could not be completed under Release A. Although only 1 week is
expected, three weeks are allocated to allow for regression testing and vacations. SPs using these Neustar CMIP systems will likely have already
completed their mandatory testing and will likely have begun Group and Round Robin...once Neustar completes these last few cases then SPs may
include the extra few features in their testing as well. 2) Neustar's XML SOA is expected to begin Release B testing in mid-
November (on or about 13 Nov). Comprehensive SOA testing is expected to take 7 weeks, however 8 weeks are allocated to allow for vacations.
3) Neustar's XML LSMS is expected to begin Release B testing in mid-
November (on or about 13 Nov). Comprehensive LSMS testing is expected to take 3 weeks, however 4 weeks are allocated to allow for vacations.
In all cases it should be noted that if extensive issues are discovered or any
repairs require an extended period for repair that this would necessarily reduce the time available for Service Providers to test those features.
8/16/2017 Syed
Mubeen Saifullah
Neustar In your timeline, where can we understand how much time they have
allocated for a circuit to be installed and tested?
Circuit install and testing is handled during the onboarding process, not as part of vendor certification or SB/SP testing. The TOM strongly
recommends that the Neustar Service Bureau begin onboarding as soon as
possible so as not to unduly burden its customers.
8/16/2017 Syed
Mubeen
Saifullah
Neustar How much time is going to be allocated for Release B CMIP functionality
testing and Required Regression Testing?
The total time allocated for Release B CMIP testing is two and 1/2 months.
We estimate that an LSMS will require 1 week for testing and a SOA will require 2 weeks for testing during this period.
Transition Outreach and Education Plan Public Questions List
9 | P a g e
Date Submitter Organization Question / Response
8/16/2017 Syed
Mubeen Saifullah
Neustar When was mid-December decided for CMIP? What is the Schedule for this
round of testing? This round of testing is from mid-December to 2/28/18. It has been the plan
from the beginning that the CMIP vendors would return to complete CMIP
testing.
8/16/2017 Syed
Mubeen Saifullah
Neustar How are customers who are on a SB and who are using XML going to
complete comprehensive testing? This seems like this schedule is putting XML clients in a very precarious position.
Based upon feedback from the industry, and the goal of allowing as much time as possible for Service Provider testing, additional analysis will be
done of specific vendor testing status, and if appropriate, Service Provider testing will start even if the vendor has not been certified. The remediation
of existing issues may occur outside the existing Release A testing windows and addressed in Release B.
8/16/2017 Syed
Mubeen
Saifullah
Neustar What is the schedule for resolving the PIMs and Change Orders being
discussed at the LNPA? Without these being resolved, how will systems be certified? What happens if issues are discovered and we have to go through
the PIM process for XML?
PIMs and Change Orders are expeditiously being worked through the
LNPA WG to ensure that a disposition is reached and solution is implemented and retested within the existing testing windows. Any issues
that are not resolved in Release A, will be fixed in Release B.
8/16/2017 Syed
Mubeen
Saifullah
Neustar How are systems being certified if there are outstanding issues on the
iconectiv side? In particular with the Change Order at the LNPA about
Error Codes? Do certified systems have to load the iconectiv Error Code File which isn't the same as the current NPAC?
Systems will only certified once all required test cases are completed. Failed
functionality will need to be retested once a fix is in place. Circuit install and testing is handled during the onboarding process, not as
part of vendor certification or SB/SP testing. The TOM strongly recommends that the Neustar Service Bureau begin onboarding as soon as
possible so as not to unduly burden its customers.
Transition Outreach and Education Plan Public Questions List
10 | P a g e
Date Submitter Organization Question / Response
8/16/2017 Syed
Mubeen Saifullah
Neustar Per the previous public statements of the TOM and iconectiv, Service
Provider testing would only happen once vendors were 100% certified. Why has this policy changed? What if issues are not resolved until Release
B or later in the year? How will carriers conduct their own
regression/certification? What is the time-table for resolving all these issues?
Service Provider testing will start even if vendor have not been certified to
ensure that adequate time is allotted for fixing and retesting any issues. The remediation of existing issues may occur outside the existing Release A
testing windows and be addressed in Release B.
8/16/2017 Syed Mubeen
Saifullah
Neustar Considering that "technical issues were identified" and also that many systems under test have exceeded their allocated time for testing, how are
you planning on addressing the extremely tight schedule for Release B testing?
The issues identified in Release A are actively being remediated through the required channels to identify and implement a solution within the
existing timelines. Vendor certification is not being required for the start of Service Provider testing to relieve pressures on existing schedules.
Contingent testing windows have been incorporated into the plan to allow for the resolution and testing of identified issues.
8/16/2017 Syed
Mubeen Saifullah
Neustar XML SOA certification is being allocated 7 or 8 weeks? Your chart says 7
weeks, however you stated 8 weeks verbally.
XML SOA certification testing is 7 weeks.
8/16/2017 Syed Mubeen
Saifullah
Neustar Per your survey 25% of users are employing the service of a SB. If they use XML, the time table I'm looking at puts their testing availability into Feb
2018. How are they supposed to compare to the carriers who have the ability to do testing starting in October?
The schedules was defined to allow for adequate time for testing across all
user groups. However, we will monitor progress closely to make necessary adjustments.
Transition Outreach and Education Plan Public Questions List
11 | P a g e
Date Submitter Organization Question / Response
8/16/17 John
Howison
Cincinnati
Bell
What happens to your timeline if you find issues with XML testing let alone
any rollback testing?
The XML testing schedule incorporates time for issue resolution and
retesting any fixes. We will closely monitor testing and make necessary adjustments for any issues that require remediation outside the existing
testing windows.
8/16/17 John
Howison
Cincinnati
Bell
What is the deadline for the LNPA WG to resolve all the open issues with
LSMS vendor testing?
A deadline has not been specified for the LNPA WG to resolve all open
issues with LSMS vendor testing. However, the LNPA working group recognizes the criticality of resolving these issues in an expedited manner.
Additional meetings were held in July and August to address the open issues.
8/16/17 John Howison
Cincinnati
Bell
Look at your 4th quarter. We do not perform upgrades from November to January. How will this impact LSMS testing if upgrades or patches are
required?
Any patches or upgrades needed for industry testing would be done in test systems only. This should not impact production systems during the
industry freeze period. See previous question for timing of production
upgrades
8/16/17 John
Howison
Cincinnati
Bell
What is the impact of testing my LSMS system IF my vendor is not
certified? Will I need to go back and re-test? How will issues be resolved with my vendor's system and with my system?
The purpose of Service Provider testing is to validate your User Profile. Any test cases currently failing with your vendor system will be fixed and
retested with your vendor and you will not need to re-test. You will, however, need to upgrade to your production LSMS to your vendor's
certified release level as quickly as possible after it has been certified, but no later than when transition is scheduled to begin April 7, 2018.
Transition Outreach and Education Plan Public Questions List
12 | P a g e
Date Submitter Organization Question / Response
7/19/17 Syed
Mubeen Saifullah
Neustar For Release B, how is the iconectiv/TOM planning on managing testing
efforts for the functions delta (new functions), the mandatory Regression testing for Vendors and Mechanized Users as well as XML testing. Per the
time-table, only 7 weeks are allocated (vs. 8 weeks for Release A), how do
we anticipate fixing any defects which may be discovered during that period?
Vendor testing begins November 13th, 2017. We expect that an XML SOA
will require seven (7) weeks to complete certification and that an XML LSMS will require four (4) weeks to complete certification. If testing begins
promptly, and no major issues are found with the vendor system(s), this
would result in certification near the end of 2017 for SOAs, and somewhat earlier for LSMSs. This allows nine (9) weeks for SP testing of an XML SOA,
and somewhat longer for an XML LSMS. If substantial issues are found during Vendor certification, the additional time for repair and regression
testing would reduce the time available for SP testing.
Please note that Release B includes more components than just the XML interface. These components (MUMP, IVR, billing, etc.) are not dependent
on XML and may be tested beginning as early as January 2nd, 2018.
7/19/17 Syed Mubeen
Saifullah
Neustar When will the industry have an opportunity to review the Roll-Back testing plan?
The new LNPA will test the processes, procedures, and governance as part
of the regional transition testing. Additional details on the overall plan will
be shared in future industry working sessions, but SPs are also encouraged to review their internal transaction request resubmission processes
individually.
7/19/17 Syed
Mubeen
Saifullah
Neustar Will the TOM please include Roll-Back testing on the time-line for
transition?
The rollback testing plan will be developed as the rollback testing plans are
finalized. We are currently gathering industry feedback on the planned approach. Additional details will follow.
7/19/17 Syed
Mubeen Saifullah
Neustar When will specifications around Roll-Back be made available?
Expected availability of the rollback support specifications may be found in
the posted material from the July 12th meeting. Additional information will be provided in the planned August 16th meeting.
Transition Outreach and Education Plan Public Questions List
13 | P a g e
Date Submitter Organization Question / Response
6/14/17 John
Howison
Cincinnati
Bell
Telephone
I understand that during the current vendor testing, defects have been
discovered. Can you please share which test-cases uncovered the defects, and also the details of these defects?
Going forward, what is the defect process management (for tracking)? And
what is the resolution process for these defects?
The TOM is not allowed to provide specific defect information because of the vendor confidentiality provisions agreed to by iconectiv and the
vendors. Please note that identified defects are under investigation.
When issues are discovered during testing they are investigated and
resolved by the vendor and iconectiv, leveraging an internal ticketing system and formal tracking mechanism. Vendors will need to pass all their
assigned test cases to be certified. Some issues may be connectivity issues or configuration issues either on the NPAC or the system under test, others
might be related to the vendor or NPAC software. The foremost goal is to resolve all issues within the vendor test window.
5/17/17 Jerry James LNP Alliance In testing, is iconectiv database real or sample/subset of the whole database or other?
The iconectiv test bed will use data known as the “Midwest Test Data”,
unloaded from the current NPAC testbed. During continued certification testing process, data will be created and managed by iconectiv on behalf of
those certifications tests. Actual regional databases unloads are also used in iconectiv internal testing of data migration, porting flows and performance.
5/17/17 Jerry James LNP Alliance How will you simulate load testing of the new system?
The iconectiv performance verification testing is done with porting
transaction loads (e.g.: create, concur and activate operations) meeting and exceeding the NPAC performance requirements. This is done in an
environment with full size databases and a representative number of
regional LTI, SOA and LSMS simulator instances. The testing flows are based on current industry performance validation practices as shown in
NANC Change Order 397.
Transition Outreach and Education Plan Public Questions List
14 | P a g e
Date Submitter Organization Question / Response
5/17/17 John
Howison
Cincinnati
Bell
Telephone
Will all "sanitized" vendor test results be shared with the Industry?
Sanitized - the vendor names will be changed to protect the guilty. Are all vendors using the same test plan?
Yes, the TOM will share aggregated vendor test results on future TOEP webcasts. Test plans are customized to match the requirements of the
System Under Test. So while the baseline tests are consistent, there can be differences depending on the capabilities implemented by each vendor.
5/17/17 Lori
Shepard
Windstream Would you be able to publish what SOAs/Service Bureaus have tested/plan
to test? We are not planning to publish the SOAs/Service Bureaus that have tested/plan to test. SOA Service Bureaus with a mechanized interface are
required to test with the iconectiv NPAC, and can do so once their vendor's SOA system has been certified with iconectiv.
We will provide aggregated testing results that are not SOA/Service Bureau
specific. We encourage users to reach out to their SOAs/Service Bureau to
understand the status of their testing efforts.
5/17/17 Syed
Mubeen Saifullah
Neustar Can the TOM confirm that iconectiv had a 100% pass rate for their
requirements prior to opening up their NPAC system for testing? Can specific metrics be shared with the industry?
Yes, iconectiv had a 100% pass rate for their requirements prior to opening their NPAC system for external industry testing. The features delivered in
Release A to support vendor and external industry testing were fully tested internally and met all the quality criteria to be released for external industry
testing. Those quality gates include functionality, industry porting and process flows and performance testing.
No additional pre-industry testing metrics are expected to be shared.
However, we will be reporting aggregated industry test results in future
TOEP webcasts.
5/17/17 Syed
Mubeen Saifullah
Neustar Which specific FRS requirements will be addressed in Release A and Release
B? In your previous TOEP seminars you indicated core functionality, however SPID migration are fundamental to porting functionality.
Release B contains XML, NPA Splits, SPID migration, MU/MP process, Pooling Administration Service Interface, and Ancillary Services. All other
FRS requirements are covered in Release A.
Transition Outreach and Education Plan Public Questions List
15 | P a g e
Date Submitter Organization Question / Response
5/17/17 Syed
Mubeen Saifullah
Neustar Will all type of Service Provider be able to participate in Round-
Robin/Group Testing?
Yes. The Group and Round Robin testing is being facilitated by the NANC's
LNPA WG. Questions regarding the participation in those tests should be addressed by the LNPA WG. It is the TOM's understanding that those tests
are focused on wireless-to-wireless, wireline-to-wireline, and intermodal (being between wireless and wireline providers).
5/17/17 Syed
Mubeen Saifullah
Neustar The TOM indicated they would give the industry a statement of readiness
with key metrics of what iconectiv-as-NPAC has completed to prepare for the industry testing. Will the TOM be formally issuing a statement of
readiness? The TOM is not planning on providing any additional statements of testing readiness beyond what was announced in the TOEP webcast.
The TOM is not planning on providing any additional statements of testing
readiness beyond what was announced on the May TOEP webcast.
As indicated on the webcast, Release A has successfully completed
iconectiv’s quality assurance process and is ready for external industry testing, starting with SOA and LSMS CMIP vendors. iconectiv has
completed the following 5 complementary internal testing activities to ensure testing readiness: development testing, independent quality
assurance, internal industry testing, performance testing and solution testing.
4/12/17 John
Howison
Cincinnati
Bell
Telephone
When is iconectiv going to tell the mandatory mechanized users where we
need to order circuits to?
Once each mechanized user has completed registration, iconectiv will provide that user with the details on ordering of its dedicated circuits to the
new iconectiv NPAC data centers.
4/12/17 John Howison
Cincinnati
Bell
Telephone
What about the 1000+ legal entities that have not started Onboarding?
iconectiv is actively conducting outreach to legal entities that have not started onboarding. Through this outreach, a number of NPAC users were
discovered to be defunct. These preliminary conclusions are being verified
and iconectiv's onboarding team will continue its effort to register all active legal entities through Q2 2018. iconectiv is on track to obtain a final
disposition for all legal entities prior to the transition.
Transition Outreach and Education Plan Public Questions List
16 | P a g e
Date Submitter Organization Question / Response
3/15/17 John
Howison
Cincinnati
Bell
Telephone
Will users test to Release A or B?
Release A and B include different components of the system, for example,
the CMIP interface is included in Release A, while Ancillary Services and
XML interface are in Release B. Mechanized users will test only the appropriate functionality that their system utilizes. A mechanized user with
a CMIP interface is expected to test in Release A. A mechanized user with an XML interface is expected to test in Release B.
3/15/17 Syed
Mubeen Saifullah
Neustar On your industry testing section, you mention that 5 acceptance test plans
have been approved by the NAPM LLC in conjunction with the FCC along with 1 more testing plan which is pending approval. When will these test
plans and the results of their testing be released and made public?
The Acceptance Test Plans are provided to the NAPM LLC and FCC for review as required under the MSA. There are no current plans to further
publicize these documents or their results.
3/15/17 John Howison
Cincinnati
Bell
Telephone
If I have to test to Release A & B - do I have to perform my MANDATED testing twice?
Mechanized users will receive a single test plan that will contain
components of Release A and B based upon their functionality. Provided
testing is successful, users will only have to test once.
2/15/17 Syed Mubeen
Saifullah
Neustar When will iconectiv or the TOM be sharing detailed testing results showing industry readiness? Also, during testing, will there be clear communication
regarding success, defects, and issues discovered? Who will be the primary communicator of these? TOM or iconectiv?
Detailed test results will be provided to the NAPM and FCC in accordance
with the MSA. Note that results will be provided in a form that does not
identify specific vendors or service providers. A summary of testing
progress will be shared by the TOM during the monthly TEOP webcasts.
2/15/17 John
Howison
Cincinnati
Bell
Telephone
What will happen if an LSMS is down at the time of
transition/cutover?
In the event an LSMS is out of service during the transition, that LSMS
would need to be brought up with the new LNPA (iconectiv) and re-
synchronized. The process for doing so will depend in part on how long
the LSMS has been out of service.
Transition Outreach and Education Plan Public Questions List
17 | P a g e
Date Submitter Organization Question / Response
1/18/17 Syed
Mubeen
Saifullah
Neustar When will the TOM or the LNPA include vendors and carriers in the
discussion around Roll Back? There are likely processes and procedures
which will impact the industry and we are respectfully requesting the
need to be part of these discussions.
The rollback capability is currently being defined with Neustar and
iconectiv. The local system vendors have all been invited to join in the
transition process, beginning with onboarding. Participating vendors will
be engaged in the rollback planning as soon as their involvement is
warranted.
1/18/17 Jerry James Jerry James
Associates
How will calls between regions during the transition be handled?
The NPAC data is managed region-by-region today, and the transition
does not directly affect carrier switching systems, so call routing during
transition will not be impacted.
12/13/16 John
Howison
Cincinnati
Bell
What is the impact of operating in the Southeast and Midwest? Do I have
to perform two cutovers?
Yes, if you operate in both of these regions, then you will need to
participate in two regional transitions. If you are working with a Service
Bureau that is implementing the “cutover” on your behalf, we expect your
Service Bureau to manage this change with limited impact to you.
12/13/16 Scharleen
Citron
West Are authorized users everyone who will eventually use the service or just
for initial set-up etc.?
Authorized users are the individuals who will utilize iconectiv's LNPA
NPAC services after transition.
10/27/13 Lisa
DeKalb
BroadRiver
Communicati
on Corp
Is there a task list we can use as a service provider to ensure we are
completing all the on boarding steps in a timely manner?
To get started with onboarding, please begin by registering online at
www.numberportability.com. Once you have registered, you will fill out a
Non-Disclosure Agreement, next a User Agreement, and finally a Regional
User Agreement. For additional questions concerning on-boarding, please
contact iconectiv at 844-820-8039, or you can email iconectiv at: