MTAC 122 Meeting Minutes for 07/16/09

  • Scope and focus of the MTAC 122 group.
  • Project status is valuable
  • Walking through CAT, TEM, patches, etc. processes is valuable
  • All the issues are important and even though they may not be totally relevant, the issue may have no other venue to discuss so it is good to review their status on this telecon.
  • Q&A’s are good if the questions are submitted early. The leadership team prefers to review all issues obtain from the previous week to be discussed on the Thursday’s telecons.
  • Lack of major meetings over the last few weeks caused critical issues to slip in TG. We should have the meeting every week even if we just discuss status of the TG’s.
  • Issues
  • 22 – 5 digit coded mail cannot go into NCOAlink. ACS and NCOALink do not use the same criteria for matching.Status - Lisa West is looking into the issue.
  • 74 – mixed class co-mail. Status - won’t be a USPS preparation for Nov 09 -> therefore issue put on hold.
  • 85 – if a mailing job is submitted and reversed then a new Mail.dat would have to be submitted with a new Job ID. This would break the connection between FAST and PO!. Status - a mailer successfully tested this functionality with limited scenarios. Need to perform more testing with robust set of test scenarios.
  • 86 - There is an issue that exists with the proposed Full Service Nixie Detail and Full Service ACS Reports in terms of software being able to process these data files in an automated manner. Status - the CRs 38688 and 38672 will be deployed in this 7/19 Sunday’s patch -> test next week.
  • 91 - We would like to have a solution available (18-May) that will allow co-mailers to have both traditional CPP and ePostage clients in a co-mail stream. Status – USPS is still looking into this issue.
  • 92 – No confirmation from the USPS wether they are or not going to implement this functionality. Haven’t assigned it to a release. Need confirmation from the USPS weather this functionality will be implemented or not.
  • 95 - Periodcal pending magazines over 1 lb are not accepted by PostalOne!. Status - Work around is to move these pubs from pending to full periodical status.
  • 97 – PostalOne! will not be supporting the optional First Class pallets for SCF, AADC etc. Status – functionality was implemented – closed
  • 98 –See Steve K mail on CSA ID . Organization of CSA # within the reporting structure of Mail.dat. When any changes are made to a CSA – the CSA ID won’t change – just the date appended to the CSA filename. Status - mailers want a new CSA ID. Issue not a show stopper for Nov 09. Will be put on hold.
  • 101 –Mailer hasn’t been able to successfully send a PQT/PDR file in TEM – process times out. Mailers can only allocate 1.6 GBs of memory for a 32 bit application. Application will time out because it will use all the memory on startup. 32 bitvs. 64 bit. Status – ETR was filed to fix the problem. Contact Lloyd Moss for help with this problem.
  • 102 – Will USPS allow postage affixed at the full service rates? Status – the postage payment method does not matter for full service discount. Requirements were written for BMEU and PW (for postage statement lines) entry to specifically state that postage payment method does not matter.
  • 103 - USPS is proposing that Mail Quality Data errors reports should go to preparer and owner. SASP will be provide these errors to MO and MPs:
  • By/For
  • Appt
  • CSA
  • MID
  • Unique Mailpc IMbs
  • Unique HUs IMtbs
  • Unique Cont IMcbs
  • Lee Angelelli will collect all the mail quality data error reports and distribute to the group:
  • What Mail Quality Data Errors the Postal Service will provide to customers.
  • Who (MO/MP) can see what information.
  • List the different reports and data in the reports that’ll be presented to customers.
  • List the different data exchange methods the Postal Service will provide mail quality data errors back to customers i.e. Mail.XML (push, request/reply), web page reports.
  • 104 – USPS is working on the documentation to clearly articulate the ACS business rules and process.
  • ACS
  • Postal Service ask mailers what outstanding ACS questions to they have and what can be done in the documentation to clearly articulate the ACS process and business rules.
  • Mailers would like to know the documents explaining the ACS process and business rules documentation.
  • USPS doesn’t think the FS ACS process and rules should be document in the Pub 8a and 8b because those are stand alone products.
  • Mailers would like USPS to explain if a mailing contains mailpieces with different ACS services on the mailpieces how does each service work and where do the mailers get the information, and what mailpieces will they receive ACS records.
  • Mailers would like for the USPS to document FS ACS exceptions.
  • Mailers would link a web based cheat sheet that describes the different flavors of ACS services with hyperlinks to direct mailers to the appropriate section of ACS information.
  • FS examples posted on RIBBS
  • USPS is creating a new web-page on the RIBBS where mailers can download FS examples. Mailers can navigate to the new site by accessing the ‘Intelligent Mail Services’ -> new link FS sample data. There will be another link off of RIBBS -> Intelligent Mail Services -> Latest news -> FS sample data.
  • The navigation would be as follows:
  • RIBBS page
  • Intelligent Mail page
  • Guides page
  • Full Service Sample Data page
  • On the page that displays when they select Full Service Sample Data we would provide the following structure/links:
  • Full Service Change of Address Data
  • CSV format samples (link to open file) followed by brief description of file
  • EXCEL format samples (link to open file) followed by brief description of file
  • XML format samples (link to open file) followed by brief description of file
  • Full Service Nixie Data
  • CSV format samples (link to open file) followed by brief description of file
  • EXCEL format samples (link to open file) followed by brief description of file
  • XML format samples (link to open file) followed by brief description of file
  • Full Service Container Visibility Data
  • XML format samples (link to open file) followed by brief description of file
  • Full Service Start-the-Clock Data
  • XML format samples (link to open file) followed by brief description of file
  • Full Service CSA Data
  • CSA File Format Document (link to open file) followed by brief description of file
  • DMU Mailer Transported (link to open file) followed by brief description of file
  • DMU Postal Transported (link to open file) followed by brief description of file
  • BMEU Origin Entered (link to open file) followed by brief description of file

Task Group Updates

  • Task group X
  • Schedule a meeting to finalize the documentation by next week.
  • Task group XIV
  • The next meeting will be on July 23 from 1-2 Eastern Time
  • Task group members are waiting to hear back from USPS on proposed co-pal solutions. These relate mostly to the usage of OCI files and whether, in some scenarios, only a sub-set of the Mail.dat file set would be utilized by PostalOne! for a co-pal job.
  • The proposed design:
  • Trays on pallets (First Class Mail or Standard Mail)are postage paid at the origin site (using the CQT and PQT at that site) that is why we only require the HDR, SEG, CSM and OCI at the co-pal site.
  • For bundles on pallets (Standard Mail or Periodicals) the postage is paid at the co-pal site due to zone optimization and other changes to the presort and entry levels. For bundles on pallets the origin information may not yield the correct postage paid. We use the entire Mail.dat file at the co-pal site for bundles on pallets.
  • This is how the SRS was first presented so that it corresponds to the business process according to BMS and has not changed. When the design documents are finalized later this week we will share them with customers but there is no change to this basic design.
  • Mailer Issues: Numerous issues were pointed out as to why this might not be the best way to go. For example, this behavior could not work for periodicals mailings and other types of co-pal so why invent a complex and confusing new behavior that is not consistent with the mail.dat spec just for one type of mail? Also, the suggested practice would require that all of the original jobs ALWAYS be present. What if the co-pal job includes some trays for which there is no original individual job in PostalOne! So in trying to link back you cannot find a tray or some trays? The whole job is now questionable. Also, if adjustments need to be made at the CQT level after co-pal, the suggested behavior provides no place to make these adjustments.
  • If changes are necessary to the job in-order to resolve mailers issues, these changes must be made at the origin site for trays on pallets and at the co-pal site for bundles on pallets.
  • Task group XV
  • USPS is proposing five options to
  • Still haven’t finalized who these logical functionality applies too. An

Open questions:

  • Mail Owners don’t want to go on to the business customer gateway to get their mailer IDs.
  • Postal Service response -If you go to the RIBBS site -> access the MID application -> have the customer fillout the application -> send it to the USPS -> USPS will assign a MID to customer -> if you’re having problems call Derrick Barnette at 202 268 4642.
  • Does the mailer have to go to the business customer gateway to obtain a CRID?
  • Postal Service response -> mailers will need to login using the MID -> a CRID will be automatically created for them. If the MO doesn’t want to have to maintain their CRID/MID info -> the MO can delegate that responsibility to the MP by logging into their account and giving the MP access to their account.