Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 8:22:07 -0500

From: "Nancy J. DeRoo " <>

Subject: 3/18 Meeting Minutes

Message-Id: <"11542052307991/33837 IN-DECTSAP"@MHS>


Barry Bishop Ameritech

Larry Vasquez AT&T

Mark Lancaster AT&T

Pam Carroll Northwest Central 911 system

Rick Jones INENA representative

Jeff Rodrigues Chicago 911 system

Jim Joerger MCI

Ed Elkin AT&T

Fred Rock Brooks

Sandiy Howard Brooks

Ron Bloom Ameritech

Carolyn Maddox Sprint

Deb Prather ICC

Nancy DeRoo Ameritech 911

Gene Valentine Ameritech

Conference Bridge

Judy Cortiana Pac Bell

Phil Hollar MCI

Mary Sharp SCC

We need all service providers to send representatives to the next meeting

armed with some answers (particularly those that also represent a 911


Since the last meeting the 911 TELCO-Vendor conference took place in

Orlando, FL. At that meeting, the NENA Data Standards Technical Committee

held a sub committee study group to recommend standards for Service Provider

Local Number Portability. The draft document that they put together was

discussed at our meeting.

The recommendation by NENA is that the donor company provide an unlock

notification to the 911 database so that the new service provider can send

through their inward migration transaction and update the 911 database with

their information.

This recommendation is completely different from what this committee had

come up with at the February meeting. We originally had decided to take

back to our companies the idea of suppressing the disconnect order and

allowing the new service provider to overwrite the record in the 911

database. We need to come to a decision on how exactly, we will handle

updating the 911 databases. If we are going to accept this proposal, we

need to make that decision in the April meeting. It must be an agreement by

all companies.

On page 7 paragraph 1.6 we decided to remove the I transaction. The record

can't match anything on an I record.(the record doesn't exist to begin with

if we're doing an I).

1.7 The last sentence needs to be moved to 1.8. This is in the case where

customer has changed their mind at the last minute and the incumbent

provider needs to re-lock the record.

We did a timeline example :

Tu Wed Th Fr


port| info |

comp| to |

| ALI |

"M" extract "U"

transmitted transmitted

22:00 Central time is the cutoff point for the Ameritech 911 database to

accept extract files. (Mary Sharp of SCC said to say approximately)

1:00 Central time is the time that file processing begins in the system.

The issue here is that the new information will go into an error file until

the "unlock" transaction comes through.

We (all companies)send on a post completion basis, therefore an unlock can't

be transmitted until the actual completion goes through.

It was agreed to that the "M" and the "U" should be shown as completed on

the date that the actual porting activity occurs. This information MUST be

passed along to all other groups within each of our companies that are in

control of passing the completions.

***** subject not discussed, but came to mind as I typed minutes****

ACTION ITEM: New database transmission links


All companies must think about how they will send a transaction (M) over to

a different 911 database. There are multiple 911 databases in Illinois, as

well as, the rest of the country. When two companies in their normal daily

business use different 911 databases, links must be established to transmit

the new service provider's "M" transaction to the opposite database(if this

is the case). The trunk groups from one service provider's end office into

the E911 tandem of the other company will take care of the routing portion.

Inter-company agreements, of course, would have to be established first.



All companies must establish a 3-5 alpha-numeric ID and let their

appropriate 911 database companies know, so that the existing records may be

updated with the ID.(prior to testing in July)

ACTION ITEM:Error code

Owner: SCC/GTE/SPRINT (911 database providers)

Need an error code for unlocks that haven't occurred and "M" transaction

tried to overwrite existing record.

ACTION ITEM: Security lock/unlock flag

Owner:SCC/GTE/SPRINT (911 database providers)

When can 911 database providers change their software to actually lock or

unlock a 10 digit telephone number. Security exists at a different level


ACTION ITEM: Report of unlocks that haven't occurred

Owner:SCC/GTE/SPRINT (911 database providers)

A report needs to be generated and sent to donor (maybe new also)service

providers that have not unlocked a record and the new provider has already

sent the "M" transaction. Other than telephone number,old service provider

name and date transaction sent, what else should be on this report?



ACTION ITEM: When does each company do their extract for 911? After

completion? (should be)What hour of day does the extract get sent to 911?


There is a timeliness involved in getting the 911 database updated after

order completion. There is a cutoff point that any 911 database accepts

file transfers. Then the procedure to process those files starts. If an M

was transmitted at 20:00 (see timeline)by new service provider and the donor

company sends through their extract at 0200, this is where an update error

could occur. Keep in mind the record already exists in the database but,

with a different company ID.

The next meeting will start later than usual, as a request to do so was made

at this meeting, so the date is on April 7th, 10:00-5:00, room 413 at the

350 Orleans address. Same conference bridge will be available as the test

team meetings, 312-814-8097. We probably won't go 'til 5:00 but, the late

start will definitely put us out later than usual.