1. Headgroup Meeting Anne-Catherine Christen Managing Director Teldas
24th March 2017

2. Agenda Inet-Releases: Planning / Test Resources
ONP PoA Process: electronic signature / ONP document for Implementation
ONP Emergency Porting Process
Inet-Statistics 2016
AoB & Open Actions

3. Inet-Releases
Inet-Release 2016 was a challenging release, with important changes on ONP processes and SSH interface
In 2017, we implemented already 2 packages of changes:
Pack1 on (supervisor menu, select WO “do I have to react?”…)
Pack2 on (cdr and vta file counter and archiving mechanism)
Other changes for 2017:
Apache migration (under evaluation)
New Test environment (under evaluation)
Security Audit follow-up actions (under evaluation)
Small bug fixes (PR10700…) and changes (to be evaluated)
Inet-Release 2018:
Any new change requests ?
Headgroup members should open possible CRs until September

4. Test Resources How to reconcile both needs?
Testing of the Release changes (Teldas view):
Validation of implementation towards the specifications / technical documents
Tests must be done early to have time for bug fixes
Teldas more and more involved in the testing phases of Inet-releases. In 2016, most test cases were first tested by Teldas prior to testing by WG members. Most PRs were opened by Teldas
Testing of the Release changes (Operators view):
WG members explain that they have often no resources, it is not a priority internally,
Operators are mainly interested in doing some regression tests for their main processes (to check that the processes still work)
When a new feature is introduced and an operator is interested to use it (or obliged to use it), then the operator is interested in testing that it works as expected
Operators want to validate their internal interface changes towards Inet
How to reconcile both needs?

5. Example Pack1 and Pack2
In 2017, we implemented several changes via small maintenance windows
Tests for Pack 1 was nearly exclusively done by Teldas
Tests for Pack 2 was also mostly done by Teldas
Teldas requires more test resources in future?
Are operators ready to leave the whole responsibility to Teldas ? (e.g. if operators don’t test properly towards their own interfaces and processes, they might face issues after rollout)
Go/no go decision exclusively at Teldas ? (or involve WG?)

6. PoA Process (recommendation WG)
PoA : Replace in the documentation the general term valid “signature” by “valid approval”
For Business customers (=INA; DDI and subscribers with “company name”):
physical signature still required –> no change
For residential customers:
Valid service contract with recipient
Same subscriber consent validation process applies for PoA
PoA document still needed (can be a part of the service contract) with the same fields as currently agreed. Field “PoA Signature” can then contain “subscriber has accepted the porting conditions on date/time XXX via Sales Channel XX”)
The “early contract termination process” must be offered as an exception and clearly validated by the subscriber (e.g. must click on “yes I’m aware of possible early termination fees which I will have to pay at my present operator”)
If reject 001 (wrong name): a legally valid signature (physical or e-signature) is required from the subscriber
If abuse: Recipient must accept an emergency port-back