• Attendees:
• Agenda
• Minutes and Actions of Previous Meeting (30/08/2007)
• Update on Action 4 – 26/07/2007
• Charging Framework
• Interconnect Charging Framework
• Interconnect Services Requirements
• Programme Update
• Openreach Ethernet
• AOB
• Next Meeting
• Outstanding Action List
• New Actions

Peter Black (NGNuk) – Chair

Peter Ryde (NGNuk)

Mark Dalziel (NGNuk/OTA)

Rod Smith (NGNuk/OTA)

Angus Flett (BT Wholesale)

Andy King (Virgin Media)

Steve Unger (Ofcom)

Phil Kirby (Vodafone)

Neil McArthur (CPW)

Phil Male (Thus),

Apologies: Ben Philips ( Easynet), Stuart Shutt (Orange), Andy May (Cable & Wireless)

To top

• Minutes and Actions from last meeting
• Charging Framework Update
• NGNuk Contract Framework
• Interconnect Requirements
• Programme Update
• AOB
• Openreach – Ethernet Products

To top

Minutes – No changes to the draft minutes were requested. The minutes of the last meeting were therefore agreed.

Actions – See outstanding actions at the end of this document.

To top

At a prior Exec meeting an NICC/TSG statement proposed they will include in the NGN Interconnect specifications the requirement that:

• NGNs undertake performance monitoring and communicate the results to interconnected NGNs involved in the call.
• RTCP HR is adopted for monitoring and fault detection on NGN interconnect links.
• That all calls are monitored rather than a sample of calls (ie 1 in N). The standards do not allow synchronisation across NGNs of which calls to monitor and hence unless all calls are monitored, CPs will monitor different call samples making fault detection and demarcation very difficult. It would also prevent any correlation with customer

The NGNuk Exec had asked the Secretariat to request from NICC information on the impact of their recommendation . The NICC response was as follows:

Question1 - What is the likely impact on channel density and consequently equipment cost? 

Answer:  Whilst comparable schemes have been implemented with minor impact by some DSP suppliers, the diverse sources of DSP software and hardware platforms means that NICC should not offer general advice. Operators must ask their suppliers for information.

Question 2 - Will the protocol RTCP HR be adopted universally by vendors - is there a split camp or are all the vendors thinking the same way?

Answer: We are not aware of any split, in that no DSP or gateway vendor has opposed the progress being made with RTCP HR or H.248.48. Early customer interest in, and demand for, the feature is likely to speed up introduction.  However, once again operators must ask their suppliers for information

Question 3 -  For operators who already have investments in creating NGN architectures what is the likely impact of an upgrade?

Answer:  Most telco-scale equipment can be upgraded, usually remotely. However, operators should check this point with their suppliers.

Question 4 - The monitoring will generate messages which will require storage and processing – likely volumes, size of message? 

Answer: In a typical use of RTCP HR/H.248.48, the largest number of such reports in a single Subtract response is 4, so an IP-IP gateway (two Subtract responses per call) could generate maximum about 2k octets of data per call. Whole UK PSTN size is of order 2E6 Erlangs busy hour, or 2E4 calls/s, so could generate 4E7 (40Mbytes) data per second or 3 Tbytes/day. This has taken several worst-case assumptions, and the key to limiting it is to store & process data only by exception parameters.

The Exec were unhappy that NICC had been unable to provide greater context or quantification. The NGNuk Secretariat were asked to speak to NICC to obtain some level of quantification of the impact.

Action 1 – 27/09/2007 – The Secretariat to seek further clarification and quantification of the likely impact and costs resulting from the NICC decision to adopt RTCP HR for the monitoring of all calls.

To top

Peter Ryde reported back that limited responses had been given to the questions on call control and session management and on developing the templates that had been circulated following the previous commercial work group meeting.

Thus had provided the most detailed response on the Call Control/ Session management question. Having reviewed this issue in more detail, Thus are less concerned that session management / call control will be a significant cost in PSTN replacement services and hence likely to require that they be separately identified and charged for.  However for non PSTN services there may be situations where the session management elements are used disproportionately (or even abused) such that some mechanism to restrict their use is required.  In Thus’s view an economic control in the form of a cost mechanism would be the most effective.  This could be set to zero or the session management elements bundled with another more material cost element for those services (e.g. PSTN voice) where the cost of session management is less important.  Therefore Thus recommend that session management and call control should be charged separately.

The responses will be circulated to the Commercial work group for information.

A small group of individuals had developed some “straw men” of the possible charging scenarios for discussion. Their intent was to present these “straw men” and take feedback, not from the point of view of what permutation of the options people want, but from the point of view of what the permutations could be.

Following discussion within the work group it was agreed as being that the group would identify whether any further permutations were required from those identified to date. (Note: none were identified at the meeting)

The options would be developed further with respect to the pro’s and con’s , variables ,issues and costs etc:

• It was felt that usage was well understood and that this should be discussed internally by members who should report back at the next meeting on 9th October.
• Port based charging had some support but needed further consideration. A small sub group agreed to develop this further prior to the next group meeting
• There were no obvious supporters of capacity based charging who were willing to volunteer to develop this further. Peter Ryde agreed to undertake this work.

Once these Straw men had been developed further the suggestion was that they would be distributed for formal responses from CPs regarding which approaches the supported and why. The intent was to try to build consensus around an approach by Christmas.

It was agreed that it would be valuable that the work be more formally documented to ensure consistency across the “straw men” such that issues such as costs, migration , economic benefits etc are consistently addressed. There were no volunteers for this work and it was suggested that this would be an appropriate task for a suitably qualified 3^rd party.

This approach was endorsed by the Exec

 

To top

Action 5 – 31/05/2007 – had given the action to the Secretariat to create a straw man structure that replicates the final interconnect framework and to populate this document and identify clearly what has been agreed and  the key issues outstanding.

The straw man was distributed to the Commercial work group on 15th August and to the Exec prior to the August meeting.

No comments were received. However this the document was reviewed with Commercial Group 24th September via an audio call.

The commercial work group agreed the following:

• That the framework will build upon UK based the BTW operator framework (rather than IPX) except where impracticable or where an alternative which improves the framework is identified. This was endorsed by the Executive.<//font>
• It was agreed that rather than developing a standardised contract applicable across all CPs the framework will be a set of necessary common elements that can form the basis of contracts that would be negotiated bilaterally. This was endorsed by the Executive.<//font>
• It was agreed that the majority of any detailed work should be undertaken via existing bodies and mechanisms such as Consult21, UKTA ,NICC etc. This was agreed by the Exec.<//font>
• That NGNuk should focus on resolving any policy issues. This was agreed by the Exec.<//font>
• There was some  discussion on the need for programme management of all activities. The commercial work group had recommended that this should be “light touch” however the Exec requested a clearer view of the issues involved before any decision was taken.<//font>

Action 2 – 27/09/2007 – Peter Ryde to define more clearly the issues involved and recommend the level of Programme Management that is appropriate

The Exec then discussed in more detail the specific areas covered within the document:

Legal

This is work stream represents the legal drafting work to develop the new framework

As initial NGN contract activity through Consult 21 is likely to be between BT and other CP’s and that the MSA discussions are being co-ordinated by UKTA it is proposed that this activity is also managed by UKTA (however, the involvement of the Mobile Operators needs to be considered)

Action 3 –27/09/2007 - Peter Ryde to meet with suitable representatives of UKTA to discuss the NGNuk view regarding the approach to developing the legal element of the NGN interconnect contract from UKTA work with Consult21 and also how to ensure Mobile Operators engagement in this process

Action 4–27/09/2007- The Exec specifically requested that all Mobile Operators were alerted to this approach.

Definitions

The NGNuk Exec had previously proposed that a standard set of definitions should be used in order to remove ambiguity.  As an example, members have not been able to agree on the use of:

• Mean time to repair, versus
• Mean time to restore, versus
• Maximum time to restore/repair

If undertaken should be owned by NGNuk but should be undertaken in conjunction with UKTA, however it requires a clearer definition of the areas to be covered to avoid duplication or unnecessary cost. The view of the commercial work stream had been that whilst this what felt to be a useful and valuable contribution but did not feel that it was a priority for NGNuk.

The Exec however felt more strongly about the matter. They felt that work was required in two areas: Firstly that agreement around the commercial terms and definitions used in any agreements (contractual or otherwise) would minimise confusion and disputes in future. In addition it was also felt that a set of principles was required reflecting the aims and ambitions of the industry in terms of the service it delivers to users. This was felt important as these would flow through to the interconnect agreements and implementation of  interconnects themselves by defining what was measured, how it was measured and how processes should operate. Whilst it would not attempt to define the detail it should aim to establish a reference against which implementation can be judged. This was agreed as being something that should be undertaken at Exec level.

Action 5 – 27/09/2007 – Secretariat to develop scoping document for those commercial areas requiring agreed definitions. This to be reviewed with UKTA . Following review to be represented to the Exec with a resource plan (and costs)

Action 6 – 27/09/2007 – The secretariat to request feedback from the Exec members on their thoughts regarding the key aims and attributes of the service principles. These to be collated by the secretariat and represented for discussion at the October Executive meeting.

Charging

The charging principles identified in the NGNuk Commercial activity stream will drive the charging methods/models and pricing arrangements on NGN interconnects. 

NGNuk was agreed as the current owner, until early 2008 at the latest, when the responsibility should be transferred to a suitable organisation for any outstanding detail

Billing and Payment Processes

This is an activity stream to develop the operational processes for billing and payment , manuals etc.

This level of detail is inappropriate to NGNuk and will also extend well beyond the anticipated end date of NGNuk. The NICC business-to-business group already have work underway in this area and would appear to be the appropriate owner

Note: As part of the charging activity there needs to be a review of the feasibility and impact of the charging recommendations on billing systems and billing development.

Action 7 –27/09/2007 - Peter Ryde to meet with suitable representatives of NICC B2B work group to discuss the NGNuk view regarding the approach to developing the detailed billing processes and confirm that NICCB2B believe that they are  the suitable owners of such activity.

Telephony Emulation

This work stream covers the development of the service specification for Telephony Emulation, including related aspects such as CLI and Transfer charging.

As this activity is already underway to support the immediate requirements of the Consult 21 process the activity should vest with Consult21/NICC and then be adapted for bilateral use.

Numbering and Addressing

A number of parties are now active in the area of Numbering and Addressing with many of the commercial issues surrounding the establishment , use and access to the Central Data Base now likely to reside with the organisation the Ofcom will appoint to undertake this work. It was not felt that any detailed implementation activity was required by NGNuk however the Exec felt that agreement to an overall approach and direction by Industry would be of benefit.

Action 8 – 27/09/2007 – The secretariat to request feedback from the Exec members on their thoughts regarding the key aims and attributes of the principles that need to be considered for Numbering and Addressing. These to be collated by the secretariat and represented for discussion at the October Executive meeting.

Quality of Service

NGNuk Interconnect Requirements proposed a QoS schema, to be validated by NICC. This will significantly influence service definitions, pricing and other commercial aspects.  The objective of this work stream is to determine the QoS schema to be used on NGN interconnections in the UK.

It was agreed that following the initial iteration between NGNuk and NICC, this will be a NICC responsibility as this is clearly a technical standards matter.

Network (and Transport) Layer

NGNuk interconnect requirements proposed a layered framework for the interconnection architecture, comprising:

• Network and Transport level services, broadly encompassing the first three layers of the OSI model.
• Intelligence and Control services, including session establishment, authentication, presence and location. 

This work stream aims to define the contract annex(es) which specify the standards to be used in the Framework

As most of this work is already underway as part of Consult21 the Exec agreed that it should be owned by NICC/Consult21 and adapted for bilateral use by individual CPs.

Control ( and Intelligence) Layer

This work stream is intended to define the control and intelligence layer standards to be used.  Unlike the Network layer, this layer is much less well-defined as it will utilise standards and techniques which are still emerging and for which there is limited practical experience in both vendor and supplier communities.

The Exec agreed that NICC is to lead however there is likely to need for significant NGNuk input as policy options related to presence, security and authentication emerge. Improved dialogue and co=ordination were stressed as imperative to this.

Data (Ethernet)

In the layered approach, Data (Ethernet) will here be defined as an application

It was agreed that NGNuk should conclude the drafting of the current service requirements document, and forward this to NICC to review and subsequently specify the technical requirements of the service.

Action 9 – 27/09/2007 – Peter Ryde to forward completed Data Requirements document to NICC

Planning and Operations

Once the services and technical standards are stable the operational procedures and agreements need to be defined.

This work logically fits in the NICC business-to-business standards group but will require significant involvement of UKTA.  Whilst much of the Industry’s efforts might be focussed on the contractual arrangements with BT, the framework should recognise that administrative and operational arrangements between other operators may not need to be as complex .This general point may also apply to other activity streams.

Action as 7 above

Service Level Agreement

It has been assumed that an overall SLA for the contract will be agreed augmented, as necessary, by service specific elements that will identify elements unique to each service.  This work stream is designed to develop the overall SLA

Whilst UKTA is well placed to lead , due to its involvement with the current Consult21 process , there was some discussion within the Commercial Group regarding whether NGNuk show establish the broad framework and principles under which the SLA will operate across industry. This was agreed by the Exec.

Action as 6 above

To top

NICC requested to comment on NGNuk requirements documentation, however only BT have responded to date:

BT considers that considerable further work is required before the document can be considered to fulfil its objective of defining NGN interconnect service requirements. One of the planned uses of this document by NICC is to allow them to develop the necessary NGN interconnect standards to support the defined service requirements. BT considers that the document is still a long way for meeting this planned objective, though BT welcomes the established liaison between NGNUK and NICC on this subject as there will need to be a number of iterations between the technical experts in NICC and the commercial requirements development in NGNUK before this document can be finalised.

The following list of comments are examples of where BT believe the document is deficient:

• The document should be defining service requirement independent of a specific supporting technology or implementation. However, the QoS aspects are focused on the use of a specific implementation and other sections appear to mix up end-to-end and interconnect requirements. BT note that NICC have been asked to consider QoS
• There are errors in the understanding of the ETSI TISPAN Release 1 standards. TISPAN Release 1 does not imply IMS framework
• Presence and Location specifies a solution rather than a set of requirements.
• Number and Addressing info is very general and contains a number of errors. NGNUK and NICC are already in consultation on numbering and addressing issues and BT recommends that this liaison is used to clarify and correct these requirements.
• There is significant information provided on PSTN/ISDN and specifically PSTN/ISDN Emulation. NICC has already defined  NGN Interconnect Standards for Emulation .BT sees little value in repeating this ISDN/PSTN Interconnect Service Requirements work and indeed causing confusion .BT suggests that the document concentrates on those services yet to be considered by NICC and for PSTN/ISDN emulation a simple reference out to the NICC Purple Release will suffice.

Action 10 - 27/09/2007 – Secretariat to follow up with NICC to obtain collective response from NICC regarding the Requirements submitted by NGNuk.

To top

Real Time Voice

The Voice PID outlines the purpose of the work stream as “developing a specification for Real Time Voice (PSTN/ISDN) reference offer for interconnected NGNs with a major deliverable as “one or more technical interconnect specifications to support the agreed reference services”.

Given the resourcing of current NGNuk work streams to date it was agreed that CPs were unlikely to be able to support this activity (due to both the availability and prioritisation of resources).

It was felt that whilst this work will need to be undertaken it is unlikely to have sufficient impetus until such time as interconnection with BT 21CN becomes imminent.

The topic had been discussed briefly at the August Executive meeting and Action 1 – 30/08/2007 – requested that the Secretariat suggest a form of words which the Exec could endorse agreeing the approach. The following was proposed:

The members of NGNuk understand that to facilitate CP to CP interconnection a significant level of detailed work will be required both technically and commercially. It is further recognised that considerable resources are being deployed on Voice interconnect through industry support of Consult 21 process  with BTW. To avoid unnecessary duplication and to avoid potential confusion the members of NGNuk have agreed that other than the commercial framework itself,  further work on Voice within NGNuk will be suspended pending progress between industry and BTW via Consult 21. It is anticipated that CP to CP interconnection will subsequently build upon some agreed subset of those agreements,  principles, service descriptions etc that are agreed between industry and BT through Consult 21.

Action 11 – 27/10/2007 – Peter Ryde to distribute the proposed wording on the approach to Real Time Voice to the Executive for comment

Data

Data Interconnect Requirements V3.2 has been agreed by the working group to reflect the VPN requirements articulated during MPLS debate.

Wider member review will be undertaken in parallel to NICC activity as most interested parties have been involved.

This will be sent to NICC imminently, however it the input is unlikely to be utilised prior to the Orange release.

Action as 8 above

Numbering and Addressing

See section 4 above

Presence and Location

BTW have provided lead (Ryan Hardy) who has drafted a paper provided to the Secretariat for comment. This will be circulated to members for comment w/c 1st October.

It was noted that Presence and Location will have an impact on the Security and Authentication work stream (as will Numbering and Addressing)

Security and Authentication

The workshop took place in August and generated considerable debate.   The primary issue of contention was to what extent the operators should be responsible for identifying the individual rather than the device initiating a session.  The business case will need to be made by each operator separately however it would seem sensible for the underlying processes and protocols to support identification of individuals as well as devices.

The Minutes of work group circulated have been circulated to members but no further comments received

The next step is to engage with the vendors to ensure that industry is aware of (and making the best use of ) the available technologies and to inform NGNuk understanding of likely timescales for delivery of key elements. 

The next work group review is not anticipated prior to November

To top

Simon Williams ( Senior Product Manager) at Ethernet attended to provide an overview of the development of the Openreach Ethernet Portfolio

To top

• Steve Unger stated that Ofcom had published their NGA Condoc on 26^th September. This can be found on the Ofcom website.
• Peter Black raised the issue of non payment of fees. To date only 4 members of the Exec had paid 2007/2008 membership fees.
• Steve Unger raised the issue that members needed to start to consider whether NGNuk should continue beyond the end of this financial year. There was some discussion as to the benefits to CPs of the forum provided by NGNuk. The Exec recognised that as NGN implementations progressed unexpected and urgent issues would arise which NGNuk was ideally suited to resolve. A number of options were discussed but no overall conclusion reached. It was agreed that this matter needed consideration and full debate as early as is practicable.

Action 12 – 27/09/2007 – Peter Black and Steve Unger agreed to review the options on the future of NGNuk for consideration by the Executive and wider membership.

To top

The next meeting will be 10.00 to 14.00 on 25^th October at Riverside House.

Future scheduled meetings

 

 

DATE	MEETING	TIME
29th November 2007	NGNuk Executive Meeting	10.00 – 14.00
13th December 2007	NGNuk Executive Meeting	10.00 – 14.00

 

Peter Ryde

NGNuk Office

07771 555 048

020 7783 4688

peter.ryde@ngnuk.org.uk

 

To top

 

 

Action 14 – 29/03/2007 - Develop guidance notes for work stream leaders regarding the use of non members within a work stream. As there is no external participation it is suggested that this action is suspended until ( or if required)	Peter Ryde Closed
Action 3 – 26/04/2007 – Secretariat to arrange that Openreach attend to provide detail of where the Openreach products will interconnect. Openreach attended the September Exec meeting	Secretariat Closed
Action 5 – 31/05/2007 – Secretariat should create a strawman structure that replicates the final interconnect framework, then to populate this document to identify clearly what has been agreed and  the key issues outstanding. Update on progress given to the Exec meeting	Secretariat Completed
Action 1 - 28/06/2007  - Gideon Senensieb to provide NGNuk with a structured set of questions reflecting the specific feedback Ofcom is seeking from CPs to help ensure that the assumptions adopted are as robust and accurate as possible. Peter Black to follow up with Ofcom.	Ofcom Ongoing
Action 1 - 26/07/2007  - Numbering and Addressing ( Ben Philips, Sky/Easynet ) – Requires review with NICC lead to ensure approaches are consistent. Ben Phillips to pick up the issue with Nigel Titley and liaise with Paul Rosbotham. Superseded by action 8 of 27/09/2008	Ben Phillips Closed
Action 4 – 26/07/2007 – NGNuk to request from NICC information on the impact of their recommendation	Mark Dalziel Completed
Action 1 – 30/08/2007 – Peter Ryde to draft agreement relating to approach to Voice activity building upon C21 and circulate this prior to September Exec.	Peter Ryde Completed
Action 2 – 30/08/2007 – Stuart Shutt to forward contact details for the Liberty Alliance to Peter Ryde.	Stuart Shutt Ongoing