Wholesale: Products & Services

Archived System CR SCR093002-05 Detail

Product Catalog (PCAT)

Qwest Preparation Guides

EDI Disclosure Documentation

LSR Developer Worksheets

Premis Guide for City List

EDI/SATE Error List

and IMA User's Guide

Sources are not always in sync and cross referencing causes delays

Revision received 11/14/02:

Qwest documentation surrounding the build of EDI maps, EDI applied Qwest business rules and testing capabilities be reformatted to be more user friendly and understandable (similar to the Qwest Local Service Order Guidelines (LSOG) and/or the Facility Based Directory Listings User Guide).

That interface differences (GUI vs. EDI) be identified but that LSOG applied business rules be in sync.

Status History

Project Meetings

2/20/03 CMP Systems Meeting

Judy Schultz/Qwest said that she did not know whether the LOE on this request had been revised. She said that Qwest met internally to determine how much of the LOE was process work and how much was system work. The LOE will be adjusted to remove the process piece. She said that Section 8.0 of the CMP document states that Systems documentation appropriately resides on the System side. She continued that changes to an existing Interfaces and systems documentation whether it is tech specs, release notes, writing the code, etc. is all part of the systems work. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that she felt like the team was going round and around. She said that originally, the CLECs said they wanted a single source document and that they wanted Qwest to go out there and review the question log correct based on our various comments. She said that Qwest said this change would bump up against IMA resources. She said that theCLECs took another approach at going forward to determine what needs to happen in the documentation today. She said that there was a meeting and that the CLECs provided examples and guidelines to Qwest so that Qwest could address the issues on a going forward basis. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that AT&T was looking at this issue the same way and felt that updating the documents was process work, not system enhancements. Judy Schultz/Qwest stated that the resources working on these documents are the same resources working on code. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that the CR change description needed to change or that she needed to withdraw the single source document CR and create an action item. She said that the CLECs and Qwest needed to get together and provide a subset of guidelines for a going forward basis. She stated that Qwest continued to see the CLECs wanting a single source document. She said that Qwest needed to understand the CLEC guidelines and readout on the progress associated with reviewing these guidelines. Judy Schultz/Qwest asked if WorldCom was still proposing that Qwest combine everything and have one source for GUI & EDI. She said it sounded like Liz Balvin/WorldCom was now asking that Qwest get existing documentation in synch. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that WorldCom never wanted to combine GUI & EDI; they just liked the look of LSOG. She said that they wanted a single source for EDI. Sue Stott/Qwest stated that she understood that there was discussion around the differences between EDI & GUI documentation and needed some clarification around scope. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that she did not know how that got lumped together. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that they have to be separate. Stephanie Prull/McLeod stated that she remembers specifically asking that the two documents be separate and was told that EDI and GUI would be one source. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that she thought Qwest would divide pre-order and order. Lynn Notarianni /Qwest stated that Qwest reviewed the guidelines that WorldCom had submitted and noted that Qwest has been following most of them for the last couple of releases. She asked Liz Balvin (WorldCom) about her request for an action item. Lynn Notarianni (Qwest) asked if she was requesting an action item and no CR that would re-do existing documentation. She asked how the process would work for the action item and how documentation would be modified going forward based on the action item discussion. She stated that the items identified as changes to EDI documentation would require Qwest to modify the documentation going forward. Liz Balvin (WorldCom) asked if new CRs would include the LOEs for those documentation changes Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that Qwest had looked at the documentation and agreed that the documentation was lacking in certain areas. She also stated that WorldCom doesn’t believe the LOE should be bigger to accommodate what the CLECs want. WorldCom views that as a process change and that there should not be an impact to the LOE. She said it sounded like Qwest was saying that they would take the LOE out of this CR and add it to the LOE for other CRs. Lynn Notarianni /Qwest said that the philosophical discussion around if documentation is good enough or not is being disputed elsewhere and is not relevant here. She said that WorldCom’s proposal was, for on a going forward basis, the changes to documentation would be part of the existing documentation effort that is included with each candidate. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that many WorldCom’s questions had been diverted to this CR and that they need to find the best way to work this out. She said that they understood that Qwest IT does systems documentation and that they wanted 10 this on a going forward basis. She continued that they did not want this for IMA 10.0, but that they wanted an action item to make changes on a going forward basis. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T said that they also forwarded examples to Qwest for their review and would like to see some changes on documentation. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that when CLECs do not like the look of the web site, Qwest changes it. Judy Schultz/Qwest said that example is a different group of resources. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that IT would do documentation needed for each candidate and maybe Qwest can take a pro-active approach and provide input on what is lacking. She continued that WorldCom takes a proactive approach to look at how to implement the guidelines going forward. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that clarification of documentation is very different than restructuring documentation. She stated that she was not clear if WorldCom was asking for a restructure or clarification of the document. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that the CLECs were looking at both a bit of restructure and a bit of clarity. Judy Schultz/Qwest stated that maybe we can separate somehow clarification and restructuring. If there are just specific fields, or areas where changes need to be made, maybe that could be done separately in an action item. Changes associated with structural changes would have to use the CR process. Stephanie Prull/McLeod stated that they currently work the question log with the EDI team. She asked if the CLECs should now bring the question log to CMP or continue to work with the EDI team. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that it makes sense to continue to take these questions to the EDI team. Judy Schultz/Qwest said that we could take an action item to look at the question log and readout after each release to discuss issues. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that WorldCom had the same issue as they work with the EDI team. She stated that the EDI team would sometimes initiate their own CRs and other times tell the CLECs to open a CMP CR.Liz noted that EDI team sometimes opened internal CRs to fix a problem. She continued that from a CLEC perspective they were having difficulty with that. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that when Qwest and the CLECs have scenarios like that and have a difference of opinion, CMP maybe the forum where we discuss it. Liz Balvin/WorldCom agreed that the CLECs would like to bring issues to the monthly CMP meeting to discuss. Sue Stott/Qwest said that maybe the CLECs could provide Qwest with examples in advance so that Qwest could be prepared to discuss. Liz Balvin/WorldCom agreed. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that maybe the team could discuss these issues next month. She continued that she did not want to loose sight of restructuring. She stated that AT&T could provide examples as well. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon stated that Eschelon thinks it would be beneficial for Qwest & the CLECs to discuss some of these roadblocks (i.e., the question log) on documentation when something is not clear. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that she could rewrite this CR and put in the specific changes where the EDI implementation team told us to initiate a CR. She stated that maybe AT&T can add their requested changes. She stated that the team could open an action item for ‘generic’ guidelines going forward. Sue Stott/Qwest said this is where she she thought the CLECs wanted restructuring of the document. She said that the easiest way for her team to manage changes going forward is to have a candidate that’s voted in to a release. She said that the field level clarification is very different than restructuring of the documents. Connie Winston/Qwest stated that these are very different work efforts. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that WorldCom understands what is included in the LOE, but asked if it was based on combining EDI and GUI. 11 Judy Schultz/Qwest stated that she wanted to make sure the CLECs and Qwest were on the same page by holding an additional meeting. She stated that she did not want to wait until the next month to revise the CR. She continued that the team also needed to come up with a process to handle clarification issues. She stated that this could be an ongoing action item on the CMP Monthly Systems agenda to discuss. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if she could issue these changes by tomorrow would Qwest provide an LOE by the March meeting. Sue Stott/Qwest said that Qwest would following the process and provide an LOE. Judy Schultz/Qwest stated that she still felt that the request was not clear on what WorldCom was requesting. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked how Qwest wanted to address the existing CR. Beth King/Qwest stated that an example of what WorldCom is requesting is all valid values for a field. She said that for ZIP fields on all forms would be a very large effort. She continued that the scope provided for the initial CR captures analysis of all forms/fields and that the LOE was 8000 hours. She said that if you are doing an analysis on a field by field basis then a different LOE would be calculated, but that was not what Qwest understood the CR to be requesting. She stated that Qwest understood the CR to capture all existing forms and fields. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that if they see a discrepancy then WorldCom would take it to the EDI Team. She stated that the EDI team would analyze the question and either agree to clarify or they would ask WorldCom to issue a CMP CR. Beth King/Qwest said that process is correct. She said that the 8000 hours LOE was for a complete analysis and restructure of the EDI developer worksheets. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T said that the CLECs like the look and feel of LSOG and thought it is cumbersome to leaf through the EDI documentation. She also said that the Bell South and SBC documentation was much easier to go through. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that it took SBC two years working with CLECs to get the document into its current form. Beth King/Qwest said that the effort for the CR is only for the EDI developer worksheets Connie Winston/Qwest stated that there are three ideas being discussed: 1) re-structure, 2) Qwest needed the CLECs to provide Qwest clarity on what they would like going forward, and 3) develop a process for bringing forward issues that the EDI team and the CLECs did not agree on. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if Qwest wanted a CR on every issue where we do not agree. Wendy Green/Qwest stated that the CLECs could send a list and Qwest could review and categorize them. Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if the global action would address the guidelines that the team talked about in the last meeting. Beth King/Qwest said that the team could address those guidelines whenever Qwest changed a field due to a major release and it is associated with the candidate. She stated that Qwest had been addressing these for the last several major releases, and that the documentation reflected that. She continued that the percentage of the fields changed due to candidates is extremely small. She stated that Qwest’s understanding was that this CR was to apply the guidelines to all existing fields. Lynn Notarianni/Qwest said that she wanted to make sure the team was in synch. She stated that Qwest could review and categorize the issues and determine which items will need CRs and which will be action items. She said that Qwest would follow up with a clarification meeting if necessary. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that this was their preference. Judy Schultz/Qwest noted that Qwest has an action item to figure out how to bring issues to this team. She continued that the second action item was for specific current issues that Qwest will review and categorize. She said that the third action item is to determine if a CR will be issued for a restructure. She said that the team also needed to review the original CR to determine to either withdraw or modify it in order to reflect what the request truly is and what the LOE would be. Beth King/Qwest stated that if the request was to restructure the DWS to have the look and feel of LSOG, Qwest feels that they would probably go to a single document rather that keeping two. She continued that the LOE currently supplied is accurate, however, Qwest could review SBC’s document (which looks like the LSOG). She said that Qwest may not want to keep two documents if they are going to look the same. Donna Osborne-Miller stated that she also has a list of similar items and asked if she should send them to Wendy Green for an analysis. Wendy Green/Qwest said yes.

Meeting Minutes SCR093002-05 Single Source Document for Implementing EDI January 28, 2003 1005 17th Street, Denver, CO Meeting Start Time: 10:00 a.m. The meeting began at 10:00 a.m. MT and introductions were made. The purpose of this meeting was to continue discussion regarding the approach for this change request going forward.

Ian Coleman, Allegiance,, Regina Mosley, AT&T, Donna Osborne-Miller - AT&T, Carla Pardee - AT&T, Todd Cherminow - Eschelon, Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon, Stephanie Prull - McLeod, Mark Coyne - Qwest, Beth King - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest, Sue Stott - Qwest, Connie Winston - Qwest, Liz Balvin - WorldCom, Phyllis Burt - AT&T, Diana Byrd - AT&T

Meeting Minutes SCR090302-05 Single Source Document for Implementing EDI (Originated by WorldCom) Lynn Stecklein/Qwest said that this CR was mentioned in the December and January Systems CMP Meetings and Qwest took an action item to schedule an ad-hoc meeting with the CLEC Community. The objective of the meeting was to gather input and recommendations from the CLEC Community associated with documentation. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that this meeting was for the CLECs to provide input for Qwest to consider on documentation going forward. Liz also wanted to know if Qwest received the examples from WorldCom and Lynn Stecklein said yes and the examples were distributed to the team. Beth King/Qwest stated that as items for this Change Request are prioritized for a release her understanding is these changes would be part of the candidate if it was prioritized for a release. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that this Change Request was originally submitted as a Product/Process request and Qwest processed the request as a System Request. Liz also stated that in the December CMP Systems Meeting, Judy Schultz/Qwest stated that we would remove this CR from the 13.0 Prioritization list and treat this request as a Product/Process CR. Lynn Stecklein/Qwest said that in the December meeting, Judy Schultz/Qwest agreed to take an action item to review this request further and determine whether we should process this CR as a Product/Process, System or both. She said that we did review internally and determined that it needs to be handled as a System CR. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that she felt we were going in different directions and that she thought we had come to an agreement in the last meeting as to how this would be processed. Bonnie Johnson/Eschelon said that Eschelon had the same understanding and this request is not a system change but a change to documentation. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T said that AT&T also had the same understanding. Beth King/Qwest stated that the Level of Effort for this change request is 7000-8000 hours and is a large effort. This CR would have to part of prioritization and would take up a large portion of a single release. Ian Coleman/Allegiance stated that the large LOE could be of concern because it could take up a large portion of a release.

Beth King/Qwest said that Qwest could look at working this CR in a phased approach with staggered deliverables. Beth said that we could look at options such as breaking the work down by Form or by Order Pre/Post. Beth also said that Qwest is reviewing the possibility of a LSOG only release and that his work could be worked in such a release Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that we need to find an alternative and a way to work together. She also said that the CLECs realize that this effort will not happen overnight. Lynn Stecklein/Qwest said that she would take an action item to get with Judy Schultz to communicate the CLECs concern with processing this CR as a system request. The following examples/issues were submitted by WorldCom and were discussed in the meeting. 1) Interface differences not clear (EDI or GUI), CLECs expect functionality would NEVER differ, need to confirm Beth King/Qwest stated that differences would be explicitly clear. 2) Field level of detail for both inquiry and response transactions lacking (what special characters apply?) Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that when they submit an inquiry, it’s not clear on what is necessary to populate or if something unique is required. Phyllis Burt/AT&T said that they would like Qwest to add a source document or link like the Premis Guide. 3) ALL valid entries not provided for each transaction type. Beth King/Qwest stated that this would not be feasible for all fields such as remarks or the address. She said this could be provided where appropriate. 4) Acronyms must be defined. Basic Guidelines - No questions 5) Usage rules must be defined Basic Guidelines – No questions 6) References must defined or have links provided. Like the Premis Guide 7) Complete business rules must provided No questions 8) Restrictions must be clearly defined No questions 9) Lack of business rules to support usage cannot occur. No questions 10) Process established to sync up EDI documentation (disclosure documents and appendices) EDI and the Developer Worksheets sync up – Beth King/Qwest explained the current process for each release is to sync up the chapters for EDI, i.e. Data Dictionaries against the developer worksheets field by field and that process would continue going forward. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated she wasn't aware of the process and wanted to know if this was done currently.

Liz Balvin/WorldCom added that another concern is ensuring the developer worksheets correctly document the way the back end systems worked. She mentioned a current issue they are having when the CSR returns a 7 digit call forwarding number, but IMA requires 10 digits for the order. Beth King/Qwest stated that Qwest understands the list provided by WorldCom and would address these items when the CR was worked. Beth did note that even with this change a document of this size will never be 100% perfect and the production support process during production use or the question log during the EDI implementation should be used if issues are found by the CLECs so corrections can be made. Liz Balvin/WorldCom stated that she did not want to change the current process associated with the Question Log and that Qwest could be more proactive. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T said that Bill Micou/AT&T expressed that he would like the documentation to have the look and feel of LSOG. Phyllis Burt/AT&T said that the documentation could be more user friendly and if so, the handholding by Qwest would be less. She also said that some ILECs provide examples of query and response. Stephanie Prull/McLeod said that they have an issue with when something is implemented one way, the Developer Worksheets don’t agree with what is implemented. There appears to be a gap between the Business and IT. Todd Cheminrow/Eschelon stated that he agrees. Carla Pardee/AT&T said that AT&T concurs Beth King/Qwest asked if there were any other questions. Phyllis Burt/AT&T asked if they could send additional examples of what they would like to see. Beth King/Qwest said that yes and that we would address in the upcoming working sessions. Phyllis Burt/AT&T also said that AT&T would like the information correct to avoid spending a lot of time checking things and that she is not real fond of the tiny print. There were no further questions and the meeting was adjourned at 10:45 am.

1/16/03 CMP Systems Meeting Lynn Stecklein/Qwest said that an ad-hoc meeting notification was sent out and that a second notification will be sent with the firm date and details. The reason for the meeting is to initiate discussion and determine approach for this change request. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that this has gone back and forth and we have some suggestions on how we’d like to see the documentation going forward. She also would like to present these suggestions at the January meeting so we could make some progress with how the documentation will be treated going forward. She stated that she has specific examples of what she’d like to present at that meeting. Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T stated that AT&T would also like to provide guideline examples. Lynn Stecklein/Qwest asked that the information be sent to her in advance of the meeting so that can be distributed prior to the meeting. The information can be sent to lsteckl@qwest.com Donna Osborne-Miller/AT&T said sure. Kit Thomte/Qwest asked if there were any other comments or questions. None were brought forward. Kit Thomte/Qwest stated that this action item would be closed.

12/19/02 Systems CMP Meeting Liz Balvin/WorldCom believes that SCR093002-05 (Single Source Document for implementing EDI) should not compete for resources. She noted that WorldCom submitted an Exception CR. WorldCom would like Qwest to have CLEC insight on how we see their documents. We would like to provide guidelines of how they should implement documentation going forward. Judy Schultz/Qwest said that the concern is that this CR is on the list for 13.0 prioritization. She said that it appears that the CLECs and Qwest need to have a series of meetings to discuss documentation going forward. This CR will be revised to reflect what WorldCom is really asking for. Liz is going to withdraw the exception CR Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked if we would be willing to withdraw it if Qwest agrees that this would be a process change. Judy Schultz/Qwest said that I don’t know that we can agree that this will be a process change until we look at it further, it might require some systems resources. Beth King/Qwest stated that the first meeting was held last week. We had discussed a new format and that new format would be part of the tech spec, and on that call we agreed that it would be prioritized for completion at a major release. Liz Balvin/WorldCom I think I am hearing different read outs from that call, I understood that we were looking at the LSOG on the GUI as much more enhanced. Beth King/Qwest said that we are not talking the same thing here. At the meeting we reviewed the LOE provided as being a systems release-related LOE. Judy Schultz/Qwest said that the disconnect is because there was some discussion about this at the CLEC pre-meeting and everyone agreed that this is a big deal the way it is written now, and so the CR should be withdrawn from the vote as is, we need to have several meetings to discuss what this needs to look like going forward. Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that’s why I’m talking about a process for helping Qwest create a new document, figure out what would be the most helpful and I had originally submitted this as a process change. Judy Schultz/Qwest said that we will take this back and look at it, pull this form the vote, and look at if further. It might be a process change, it might be a systems change, or it might be a combination of both. Please respond to liz.balvin@wcom.com To:cmpcr@qwest.com cc:lsteckl@qwest.com

Subject:FW: SCR093002-05 Single Source Document for Implementing EDI

WCom is willing to change the language in the attached CR to better reflect the intended change. NOTE: The original request was submitted as a "process" CR which is still the intended CMP WCom wishes to follow. As such, the CR would not compete for IMA resources and impact prioritization. The new language should read:

This change request is not intended to modify in any way the current or planned Qwest applications or code to support these systems. In addition, this change request is not intended to be retroactive to current or previous OSS interface requirements. It is intended to be implemented on a going forward basis. The request seeks to require CLEC input such that Qwest understands from a "users perspective" what changes are need to provide "efficacy" as required by the FCC. WCom recommends working sessions with interested Parties as a means to establish ground rules for documentation.

An exception would not be necessary if Qwest agrees with following the Process CMP.

Thanks, Liz Balvin WorldCom Carrier Management - Qwest Internal Line - V625-7305 External Line - 303-217-7305 Pager (888) 900-7221

12/11/02 SCR093002-05 Meeting with CLECs Introduction of Attendees Peter Lynch - Midcontinent Communications, Todd Cheminrow - Eschelon, Bonnie Johnson - Eschelon, Monica Avila - VarTec, Candy Skaff - Eschelon, Beth King- Qwest, Wendy Green, Qwest, Judy Derosier - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein, Qwest - Kyle Kirvis, Qwest, Dave Burley - WorldCom, Bill Micou - AT&T, Holly Hogue - BizTelOne, Inc, Stephanie Pruell - McLeod, Regina Moseley - AT&T, Lori Mendoza - Allegiance, Fariba Jafari - Nightfire

Review Purpose of Meeting The purpose of this meeting was to discuss SCR093002-05 (Single Source Document for Implementing EDI. WorldCom is requesting Qwest documentation surrounding EDI maps, EDI applied Qwest business rules and testing capabilities be reformatted to be more user friendly and understandable.

Beth King/Qwest wanted to know if everyone was able to look at the URL's that were provided (LSOG and Developer Worksheets). Everyone said that they had. Beth King provided an overview of the LSOG and the Developer worksheets and the way they exist today. (For detail on differences see the following URLs: Customer Service Record Inquiry (CSR): Go to the LSOG URL at http://www.qwest.com/wholesale/clecs/lsog.html, then download the Customer Service Record Inquiry (CSR) Appendix A in the 11.0 Disclosure Document: Go to http://www.qwest.com/disclosures/netdisclosure409.html and download in 11.0 Appendix A Developer Worksheets PreOrder

Beth King/Qwest stated that the LOE of 7000 - 8000 hours reflects work for a single source document and the LSOG type format.

Dave Burley/WorldCom explained that this change does not change any application and/or function that Qwest provides today. Dave also explained that WorldCom submitted this request due to the fact that they found differences and contradictions in field values, etc. WorldCom would like to move towards the LSOG type format.

Beth King/Qwest noted that if this CR was prioritized, it would be scheduled in a major release and that if prioritized the work would be a joint effort to ensure that the document reflects the CLECs input.

Beth King/Qwest asked if there were any questions up to this point and stated that if there were no questions now, the CLECs could take there feedback back to their CMP representative.

Candy Skaff/Eschelon stated that she agrees with what has been discussed in this meeting and raised a question about versioning. Beth King/Qwest said that yes, we do need to be concerned about versioning and that versioning would be addressed.

Dave Burley/WorldCom stated that this would not be a short term effort and would require input and effort from both sides, Qwest and the CLECs.

Bill Micou/AT&T asked if it would be necessary to rebuild, for example version 10, and Beth King/Qwest said no this would be going forward only.

Lori Mendoza/Allegiance asked if the differences would be provided for EDI and GUI. Beth King/Qwest stated that the 1 document would include differences.

Bill Micou/AT&T stated that the LSOG format is far superior to the Developer Worksheets and that AT&T would support the LSOG format.

Dave Burley/WorldCom reiterated that sometimes they would find the same field with different definitions. He stated that this document would be an all inclusive document but Qwest would not be expected to include every single value for a field (using the class of service as an example).

There were not further questions and everyone understood the vision going forward with this request.

Peter Lynch/Midcontinent Communications asked when this CR was submitted. Lynn Stecklein/Qwest stated that the CR was submitted on September 30, 2002, presented by WorldCom in the November CMP Systems Meeting and is elegible for the 13.0 prioritization that is scheduled December 19, 2002.

11/21/02 CMP Systems Meeting Liz Balvin-WorldCom reviewed the CR. She stated that there was a lot of confusion around documentation. She stated that WorldCom wanted one document with the business rules and mapping instructions. She indicated that they realized that there would be interface differences, but that there would need to be a clean up effort.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that there would be significant format changes too.

Liz Balvin-WorldCom stated that the format would be similar to FBDL.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that this CR was requesting a huge change to documentation and that it had a large LOE. She stated that many EDI CLECs were used to the current format.

Beth King-Qwest stated that there was a level of detail in the current format and that this CR would bring about a major change in format.

Liz Balvin-WorldCom stated that during the 12.0 packaging meeting there was a discussion around the line item for EDI documentation and conversion. She stated that she understood the large LOE, but that it was part of Qwest requirement to provide documentation. She stated that she thought that Qwest should cover the hours of the change outside of the release.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that WorldCom was the only EDI CLEC asking for this change.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon stated that her company had also struggled with documentation. She then added that she received a Level 2 notification that she was concerned with.

Beth King-Qwest stated that the notification was a change to the IMA GUI web site. She stated that the web site used to have links to developer worksheets and that Qwest was moving the links because GUI users do not utilize the developer worksheets. She stated that this change was to clean up the web site.

Stephanie Prull-McLeod USA stated that McLeod had also struggled with LSOG, PCATs, and developer worksheets. She stated that developer worksheets were very different from PCATs.

Liz Balvin-WorldCom stated that she was not suggesting going to PCATs for development.

Beth King-Qwest stated that the PCAT is a very different level of information.

Liz Balvin-WorldCom stated that she did not want documentation to reference other documents. She stated that Qwest had taken note of many of the issues and that they needed to address them.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked if the team could continue using developer worksheets.

Beth King-Qwest stated that they could. She stated that there would be versions with releases and that the changes would be made to content.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked for examples of WorldCom’s proposed change.

Beth King-Qwest stated that once the CR had gone through prioritization and had entered into the design phase, then Qwest could complete an example.

Bonnie Johnson-Eschelon asked why it would be prioritized because it was not a change to a system.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that EDI disclosure was part of a major release and that this CR was asking for a major documentation change. She stated that there would need to be a lot of change on the CLEC side too to accommodate for the changes.

Liz Balvin-WorldCom stated that under the current process, if a document change was identified then Qwest would just make the change. She stated that documentation was required by the FCC.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that many CLECs are using the current documentation for EDI.

Liz Balvin-WorldCom stated that CLECs were using the documentation provided. She continued that she thought it would benefit everyone to have one clean document.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that if the CR is prioritized then there would be approval steps during the design process to make sure that everyone is clear. Connie Winston-Qwest indicated that Qwest would take an action item to review if the CR could be part of a formal release or in a parallel effort. She stated that Qwest would review the structure and that the CLECs and Qwest would need to design together and create a sample.

Liz Balvin-WorldCom stated that other ILECs did this and sited Southwestern Bell. She stated that it took them over a year to complete the documentation clean up. She stated that they had separate documents for pre-order and order.

Beth King-Qwest requested input from other EDI CLECs.

Louis Davidov-DSET stated that he had never had a problem with the documentation and stated that he thought that looking at LSOG was a waste of time. He continued that even though there was other documentation out there, 90% of the time it wasn’t needed. He stated that he had been working with IMA EDI since version 4.2. He stated that if LSOG were included then they wouldn’t know what to code with.

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that combining the documents could be confusing for EDI users. She suggested having a conference call with all EDI users.

Liz Balvin-WorldCom stated that she was confused because she had been told that the documentation was confusing.

Louis Davidov-DSET stated that he had been an EDI developer for over 5 years and he had never had a problem using the documentation. .

Connie Winston-Qwest stated that there needed to be an offline discussion about the technical implications of the CR. She stated that she was concerned with the people who coded EDI and their use of a combined document. She stated that a call would be set up between the next two meetings to discuss this issue further.

Terry Bahner-AT&T stated that AT&T would like to attend.

Kit Thomte-Qwest stated that the CRPM would set up the meeting.

Revision received 11/14/02: Qwest documentation surrounding the build of EDI maps, EDI applied Qwest business rules and testing capabilities be reformatted to be more user friendly and understandable (similar to the Qwest Local Service Order Guidelines (LSOG) and/or the Facility Based Directory Listings User Guide). That interface differences (GUI vs. EDI) be identified but that LSOG applied business rules be in sync.

11/14/02 Additional Clarification Meeting Attendees: Liz Balvin - WorldCom, Dave Burley - WorldCom, Beth King - Qwest, Kyle Kirvis - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Introductions were made

Review Requested (Description of Change) Lynn Stecklein reviewed the request and the purpose of the additional clarification call. Qwest has done some initial analysis on this request from WorldCom and would would like to share the findings and ask additional clarifying questions. Beth King stated that Qwest completed the analysis on the EDI Implementation Question Log that was sent by WorldCom and determined that no questions relating to the PCAT have been submitted by WorldCom. Many questions have been asked about the differences between LSOG and the Developer Worksheets and appears to be the primary concern. Beth King stated that the LSOG was intended to be intended for IMA manual and GUI users, not for EDI. Beth also reviewed the EDI disclosure document, Premise Guide, Error List and the IMA User Guide. She asked if Qwest were to put specific verbiage with links to the EDI Disclosure Document on the LSOG Web Page and in each LSOG document would this make if more clear. Liz Balvin said that is only one aspect to why is wasn't clear to use. She also said that the EDI information is not adequate. Dave stated that the LSOG Guides are very useful and is impressed. He also said that WorldCom prefers the LSOG and FBDL format because they are easy to follow. Dave also stated that the concern is not the differences between the specific fields in the LSOG and DWS, but the difference in the formats and level of detail in content. WorldCom also understands that there will be field differences.

Establish Action Plan Beth stated that the change request does not reflect the discussion we have had today.She recommended that WorldCom revise the CR to accurately capture what WorldCom is requesting. Liz said that she will work with Dave and send the revision within the hour.

10/9/02 Clarification Meeting

Attendees: Liz Balvin - WorldCom, Wendy Green - Qwest, Beth King - Qwest, Lynn Stecklein - Qwest

Introductions were made

Review Requested (Description of Change) Lynn Stecklein/Qwest reviewed the request. WorldCom is looking for a single source document for implementing EDI. The change request noted that at a minimum, the following documents are provided by Qwest for EDI implementation: PCAT, Qwest Preparation Guides, EDI Disclosure Documentation, LSR Developer Worksheets, Premis Guide for City List, EDI/SATE Error List, and IMA User Guide. WorldCom stated that these sources are not always in sync and cross referencing causes delays. WorldCom would like Qwest to provide a single source document with necessary requirements to build EDI maps, understand Qwest business rules, test and implement EDI.

Confirm Areas and Products Impacted Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that the EDI Team told WorldCom to use the Disclosure Documentation. WorldCom said that the Documentation is not clear enough and they have to use other sources. Liz Balvin stated that in the SBC Territory for EDI implementation they have Pre-Order and Order Documents. SBC also provides links within that Documentation to other documents needed for EDI Implementation.

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

Identify/Confirm CLECs Expectation Wendy Green/Qwest said that for EDI coding, WorldCom needs to be using the Disclosure Document and not the Qwest Preparation Guides. Wendy Green also said that Qwest would like to see specific examples because the Disclosure Document should be providing the information necessary for EDI Implementation.

Wendy Green/Qwest stated that there is a link in the Disclosure Document to the PCAT. Wendy Green also stated that the LSR Developer Worksheets are part of the Disclosure Document

Wendy Green/Qwest asked if WorldCom used the Premise Guide to determine valid cities and Liz Balvin said yes. Wendy Green said that Qwest could put a link/reference to the Premise guide in the city field in the Worksheet.. Wendy Green also stressed that Qwest does not want to end up duplicating information across documents. This will lead to dual maintenance of documents and increase the risk of out of synch errors. The Premis guide is used by groups other than CLECs implementing EDI. Wendy Green also said that the Error List is just a list of errors and a source of reference.

Wendy Green/Qwest brought up the 73 day disclosure timeline. The errors list needs to be a separate document because the information for the errors list is not available at 73 days. If the errors list was incorporated into the Disclosure Document. Qwest would be unable to publish this portion of the document at the 73 day timeline.

Liz Balvin/WorldCom asked what the difference between IMA and EDI.

Wendy Green/Qwest stated that the only difference is the GUI

Liz Balvin/WorldCom said that she would provide examples of discrepancies.

Identify any Dependent Systems Change Requests None

Establish Action Plan - WorldCom will present this change request in the November Systems CMP meeting.

CenturyLink Response

RE: SCR093002-05 Single Source Document for Implementing EDI Qwest has reviewed the information submitted as part of Change Request (SCR093002-05). Based upon the scope of this CR as agreed to in the Clarification Meetings (held October 9, 2002, & November 14, 2002) Qwest is able to provide an estimated Level of Effort (LOE) of 7000 to 8000 hours for this IMA Change Request

At the next Monthly Systems CMP Meeting, CMP participants will be given the opportunity to comment on this Change Request and provide additional clarifications. Any clarifications and/or modifications identified at that time will be incorporated into Qwest's further evaluation of this Change Request.

This Change Request is an eligible candidate for the IMA 13.0 prioritization vote.

Sincerely, Qwest