#totsco — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #totsco, aggregated by home.social.
-
@revk @bloor Any interesting thoughts on the business One Touch Switching pricing released today?
https://totsco.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Bulletin-88-TOTSCo-GPLB-Update-includ-Price-Lists-and-User-and-MAP-Agreement-Updates.pdf -
-
-
-
-
I never quite understand the issue with "herding cats".
I think that #TOTSCO call was what people say when they talk of "herding cats".
It was an amazing call, and I am not saying that in an entirely "good" way. Wow...
In practice, of course, for actual cats, all you need is a laser pointer, easy. If only it was that easy for telcos.
-
I never quite understand the issue with "herding cats".
I think that #TOTSCO call was what people say when they talk of "herding cats".
It was an amazing call, and I am not saying that in an entirely "good" way. Wow...
In practice, of course, for actual cats, all you need is a laser pointer, easy. If only it was that easy for telcos.
-
Day 1 on live (ramp up) #TOTSCO and already four problems (not us). Looks like daily teams calls. Could be fun.
Oh, and for the “I told you so moment, later”, for one of them, I’ll just say: &
(If you know, you know!)
Shock: I was wrong, a different error. I am so used to the & being an issue, and was wrong.
-
Day 1 on live (ramp up) #TOTSCO and already four problems (not us). Looks like daily teams calls. Could be fun.
Oh, and for the “I told you so moment, later”, for one of them, I’ll just say: &
(If you know, you know!)
Shock: I was wrong, a different error. I am so used to the & being an issue, and was wrong.
-
#TOTSCO rejected my echo message proposal.
Why? Because they considered such a proposal before and rejected that one because it would not test the full message processing queues, etc, just basic connectivity.
So they have rejected my proposal, because of a flaw in a previous proposal.
A flaw my proposal does not have (as my proposal already says the echo message must follow the same processing path as a match request).
That's logical, right?
FFS
-
#TOTSCO rejected my echo message proposal.
Why? Because they considered such a proposal before and rejected that one because it would not test the full message processing queues, etc, just basic connectivity.
So they have rejected my proposal, because of a flaw in a previous proposal.
A flaw my proposal does not have (as my proposal already says the echo message must follow the same processing path as a match request).
That's logical, right?
FFS
-
Anyone want to comment on this before I send to #TOTSCO ?
-
Anyone want to comment on this before I send to #TOTSCO ?
-
-
-
-
-
Hmm #TOTSCO I did not expect.
I have a CP doing testing who are returning two services as service found on a single switch order. This means the only option is switch both services.
Now it has just occurred to me that I need to double check how we present that to our customers. Our order form may have to cater for that. Assuming it is “valid”. The problem is, even if not “valid” we could get it from a CP!
Fun times.
-
Hmm #TOTSCO I did not expect.
I have a CP doing testing who are returning two services as service found on a single switch order. This means the only option is switch both services.
Now it has just occurred to me that I need to double check how we present that to our customers. Our order form may have to cater for that. Assuming it is “valid”. The problem is, even if not “valid” we could get it from a CP!
Fun times.
-
Talking for an hour with OFCOM today was, err, interesting.
Let's see how it pans out.
Making #TOTSCO work is going to be a challenge, none the less.
-
Talking for an hour with OFCOM today was, err, interesting.
Let's see how it pans out.
Making #TOTSCO work is going to be a challenge, none the less.
-
-
-
Arg #TOTSCO
They casually send out a bulletin on handing incoming messages, time to respond, and handing duplicates. The duplicate handling advised basically MANDATES that senders have a unique source correlationID on messages. The spec does not say that (do tell me if I am wrong) and the examples have duplicates.
So updating NOTSCO to report duplicates now.
Why can we not have a good specification?
More here: https://www.revk.uk/2024/07/totsco-changing-rules-again.html
-
Arg #TOTSCO
They casually send out a bulletin on handing incoming messages, time to respond, and handing duplicates. The duplicate handling advised basically MANDATES that senders have a unique source correlationID on messages. The spec does not say that (do tell me if I am wrong) and the examples have duplicates.
So updating NOTSCO to report duplicates now.
Why can we not have a good specification?
More here: https://www.revk.uk/2024/07/totsco-changing-rules-again.html
-
Once again, I think, saying what needs to be said... #TOTSCO
-
Once again, I think, saying what needs to be said... #TOTSCO
-
Starting on #TOTSCO? Take a look
https://www.revk.uk/2024/07/totsco-journey-to-help-other-cps.html -
Starting on #TOTSCO? Take a look
https://www.revk.uk/2024/07/totsco-journey-to-help-other-cps.html -
Well, we passed #TOTSCO production testing.
I would say "how the hell did they drag that out to 15 minutes".
The answer seems to be that they send the test messages and replies by hand it seems!
So take several minutes (breaking SLA, and causing timeout) to generate the reply to my message, and then the test message to me.
And the first message to me they got wrong, and we rejected as not meeting the API specification, so they had to try again!!!
Wow...
(but we passed)
-
Well, we passed #TOTSCO production testing.
I would say "how the hell did they drag that out to 15 minutes".
The answer seems to be that they send the test messages and replies by hand it seems!
So take several minutes (breaking SLA, and causing timeout) to generate the reply to my message, and then the test message to me.
And the first message to me they got wrong, and we rejected as not meeting the API specification, so they had to try again!!!
Wow...
(but we passed)
-
I’m planning some updates to #NOTSCO today to allow a lot more combinations of match response. Trying to cover off the #TOTSCO examples to make high level testing work better.
We can make our match responses simple, they are. But we have to cope with whatever complexity of match responses come from other CPs, and explain the choice to our customer. And that is a slight challenge. I’m not sure I am explaining it very well in current ordering, so more NOTSCO options will help.
-
I’m planning some updates to #NOTSCO today to allow a lot more combinations of match response. Trying to cover off the #TOTSCO examples to make high level testing work better.
We can make our match responses simple, they are. But we have to cope with whatever complexity of match responses come from other CPs, and explain the choice to our customer. And that is a slight challenge. I’m not sure I am explaining it very well in current ordering, so more NOTSCO options will help.
-
Good grief.
#TOTSCO have, yet again, asked for IPv4 addresses which I have already supplied, and they have already whitelisted! Twice now!
They have also asked when I would be available for a test slot, even though they have one booked for tomorrow.
They have no clue!!!
-
Good grief.
#TOTSCO have, yet again, asked for IPv4 addresses which I have already supplied, and they have already whitelisted! Twice now!
They have also asked when I would be available for a test slot, even though they have one booked for tomorrow.
They have no clue!!!
-
We now have a test slot with #TOTSCO finally. A two hour slot tomorrow.
I don’t quite understand though.
The test exit criterium is one message. I think one each way so request and reply. And as they have made us live, I have done a message to BT and got a reply on the production platform. It did not take 2 hours. In fact it was well under 10 seconds.
So no clue what they are planning for tomorrow.
-
We now have a test slot with #TOTSCO finally. A two hour slot tomorrow.
I don’t quite understand though.
The test exit criterium is one message. I think one each way so request and reply. And as they have made us live, I have done a message to BT and got a reply on the production platform. It did not take 2 hours. In fact it was well under 10 seconds.
So no clue what they are planning for tomorrow.
-
Who wants me to write up one blog post on the #TOTSCO journey and the steps I would suggest if starting again so as to help other CPs?
-
Who wants me to write up one blog post on the #TOTSCO journey and the steps I would suggest if starting again so as to help other CPs?
-
Wow, finally on #TOTSCO live, ready to do the "one test message"...
Guess how many CPs are live on TOTSCO production platform right now based on the directory?
Bear in mind deadline for *ALL* CPs to be live is 8 weeks time.
Bear in mind the list of CUPID (communications provider ID) at OFCOM has 740 entries, and they are not the "retailer level" to which OTS applies, so should be a lot more CPs.
-
Wow, finally on #TOTSCO live, ready to do the "one test message"...
Guess how many CPs are live on TOTSCO production platform right now based on the directory?
Bear in mind deadline for *ALL* CPs to be live is 8 weeks time.
Bear in mind the list of CUPID (communications provider ID) at OFCOM has 740 entries, and they are not the "retailer level" to which OTS applies, so should be a lot more CPs.
-
FFS #TOTSCO !
OK I have updated NOTSCO to allow OAUTH2 with client_id and client_secret in the application/x-www-form-urlencoded post, as per §2.3.1 of RFC 6749
The TOTSCO API document specifically says to use Authorization header, Basic, for the token request, and does not even reference RFC 6749.
So naturally that is how I coded NOTSCO. But TOTSCO are telling CPs they can do that, so now I have updated NOTSCO to allow it.
They really cannot write specifications, can they??!!
-
FFS #TOTSCO !
OK I have updated NOTSCO to allow OAUTH2 with client_id and client_secret in the application/x-www-form-urlencoded post, as per §2.3.1 of RFC 6749
The TOTSCO API document specifically says to use Authorization header, Basic, for the token request, and does not even reference RFC 6749.
So naturally that is how I coded NOTSCO. But TOTSCO are telling CPs they can do that, so now I have updated NOTSCO to allow it.
They really cannot write specifications, can they??!!
-
So, the latest fun.
#TOTSCO have a form on their control pages (logged in, 2FA, https), that allows us to put in the credentials, URLs and IP addresses for our end.
But...
1. They don't allow us to edit those!
2. Even though I put them in, they ask us to send them in *plain text email* (i.e. unencrypted).
I bet they send the credentials for their side in plain text email, just waiting to see.
Update: it was!
They are using outlook.com, does that train AI on emails? This could be fun!
-
So, the latest fun.
#TOTSCO have a form on their control pages (logged in, 2FA, https), that allows us to put in the credentials, URLs and IP addresses for our end.
But...
1. They don't allow us to edit those!
2. Even though I put them in, they ask us to send them in *plain text email* (i.e. unencrypted).
I bet they send the credentials for their side in plain text email, just waiting to see.
Update: it was!
They are using outlook.com, does that train AI on emails? This could be fun!
-
"We are glad that CP: Andrews & Arnold Ltd. is showing interest to take part for the Production Implementation Testing (PIT)."
Like we have a fucking choice, #TOTSCO
Really?!
-
"We are glad that CP: Andrews & Arnold Ltd. is showing interest to take part for the Production Implementation Testing (PIT)."
Like we have a fucking choice, #TOTSCO
Really?!
-
Gotta love the #TOTSCO "declaration" form for completing testing.
For a start, they ask for counts of messages each way for each type, but, err, they know that, so why ask.
But this is a gem: "I confirm we have made no internal changes since declaration".
Well, at the point I sign that I am making the declaration, so it has to be true at the point I make that declaration.
Maybe it should be "since completing testing", D'Oh.
(I made no changes between testing and declaration, BTW).
-
Gotta love the #TOTSCO "declaration" form for completing testing.
For a start, they ask for counts of messages each way for each type, but, err, they know that, so why ask.
But this is a gem: "I confirm we have made no internal changes since declaration".
Well, at the point I sign that I am making the declaration, so it has to be true at the point I make that declaration.
Maybe it should be "since completing testing", D'Oh.
(I made no changes between testing and declaration, BTW).
-
That is how it should have been with a "buddy CP" for #totsco
90 minutes teams call.
And most of that was each of us working around all the checks we normally have in place for how orders work, so as to force test scenarios.
All passed testing both ways.
-
That is how it should have been with a "buddy CP" for #totsco
90 minutes teams call.
And most of that was each of us working around all the checks we normally have in place for how orders work, so as to force test scenarios.
All passed testing both ways.