Communications Service
Describe a persistent communications service provision and the scoped evidence supporting its dependencies, capability and assurance.
Bundle → Layer → Finding → Questions Filled
6 bundles · 12 layers · 12 findings · 36 questions
Service identity Proposed local grouping for service identity of a communications service.
Service identity and classification
Identify one persistent provision of communications capability. Catalogue offerings, customer agreements and individual sessions are external references. Identity survives a change of access technology only when the authoritative master records continuity.
Service identity and classification
Identify one persistent provision of communications capability. Catalogue offerings, customer agreements and individual sessions are external references. Identity survives a change of access technology only when the authoritative master records continuity.
- Which master-system service identifier and namespace distinguish this provision from its offering and subscription? identity
- Which communications capability and service profile classify this provision? classification
- Which operator role stewards this record and which separate party records identify provider and customer? ownership
Lifecycle and realization evidence
Keep requested, administratively enabled, observed operational and retired states separate. A local revision records evidence and effective time; it does not provision or terminate a network service.
Lifecycle and realization evidence
Keep requested, administratively enabled, observed operational and retired states separate. A local revision records evidence and effective time; it does not provision or terminate a network service.
- Which state transition is proposed and which evidence supports its effective interval? lifecycle
- What operational state is observed, by whom, and how old is that observation? state
- How are failed activation, partial suspension and disputed termination recorded without replacing earlier evidence? exception
Delivery scope Proposed local grouping for delivery scope of a communications service.
Demarcation and dependencies
Describe service-facing attachment points and directed connectivity separately from underlay equipment. Reference interconnection, transit or peer dependencies with responsibility boundaries; internal topology need not be disclosed.
Demarcation and dependencies
Describe service-facing attachment points and directed connectivity separately from underlay equipment. Reference interconnection, transit or peer dependencies with responsibility boundaries; internal topology need not be disclosed.
- Which demarcation points and directed connectivity groups belong to this service profile? composition
- Which network and interconnection references support delivery and where does responsibility change? relationship
- Which attachment or traffic-profile exclusions limit the stated delivery commitment? constraint
Coverage claims and evidence
Proposed evidence discipline: store coverage claims with area, method, time, uncertainty and limitations. Predicted availability, observed performance and eligibility to order are separate assertions; measurements at selected locations do not prove universal coverage.
Coverage claims and evidence
Proposed evidence discipline: store coverage claims with area, method, time, uncertainty and limitations. Predicted availability, observed performance and eligibility to order are separate assertions; measurements at selected locations do not prove universal coverage.
- Which area, site set or access locations does this coverage assertion concern? spatial
- Was coverage predicted, measured or declared, under what conditions and with what uncertainty? measurement
- Which gaps, stale samples or exclusions prevent this coverage assertion from proving availability at a requested location? quality
Resource authority Proposed local grouping for resource authority of a communications service.
Spectrum dependency and authority
Record optional references to applicable band plans and competent-authority permissions. Wireless authorization is profile-dependent. A licence expiry cannot be interpreted here as automatic return of a band, deletion of a service or permission to transmit.
Spectrum dependency and authority
Record optional references to applicable band plans and competent-authority permissions. Wireless authorization is profile-dependent. A licence expiry cannot be interpreted here as automatic return of a band, deletion of a service or permission to transmit.
- Which competent authority record or exemption basis governs this service spectrum dependency? authority
- For which territory and effective interval is the referenced permission asserted to apply? temporal
- Which unresolved conditions or national-profile reviews block reliance on the spectrum reference? requirement
Numbering-plan and assignment references
Link number resources only for services that use them. Keep the numbering plan, assignment evidence and any portability evidence distinct. A number is not the stable identity of the service or its subscriber.
Numbering-plan and assignment references
Link number resources only for services that use them. Keep the numbering plan, assignment evidence and any portability evidence distinct. A number is not the stable identity of the service or its subscriber.
- Which numbering plan, resource identifier and issuing authority qualify this number reference? identity
- Which dated assignment or portability evidence supports the current association with the service? provenance
- How are number reuse, disputed assignment or a service without telephone numbering represented? exception
Internet resource dependencies Proposed local grouping for internet resource dependencies of a communications service.
Address and autonomous-system registration
Keep registry authority and handles with address or autonomous-system references. Registration evidence is separate from endpoint assignment and observed use. A public registry link does not make its contacts or local service associations public.
Address and autonomous-system registration
Keep registry authority and handles with address or autonomous-system references. Registration evidence is separate from endpoint assignment and observed use. A public registry link does not make its contacts or local service associations public.
- Which registry authority and handle identify the IP network or autonomous-system resource? identity
- Which effective-dated association connects this registered resource to the service? relationship
- Which RDAP response version, retrieval time and unresolved or redacted fields must the mapping preserve? interoperability
Route observation and origin evidence
Reference observed announcements and origin-validation results separately from registration. Preserve observer, prefix, origin, cache time and result semantics. Origin validation does not prove end-to-end path safety, reachability or permission for local route changes.
Route observation and origin evidence
Reference observed announcements and origin-validation results separately from registration. Preserve observer, prefix, origin, cache time and result semantics. Origin validation does not prove end-to-end path safety, reachability or permission for local route changes.
- Which observation identifies the announced prefix and origin at a stated time? evidence
- Which validation profile and cache snapshot support the reported origin result, including unknown or unavailable evidence? validation
- Which limits prevent interpreting this origin result as path validation or service reachability? security
Service assurance Proposed local grouping for service assurance of a communications service.
Commitments and measured quality
Reference versioned objectives separately from observed quality. State metric, direction, units, interval and applicable exclusions. A profile decides how evidence is evaluated; insufficient evidence remains unknown rather than pass.
Commitments and measured quality
Reference versioned objectives separately from observed quality. State metric, direction, units, interval and applicable exclusions. A profile decides how evidence is evaluated; insufficient evidence remains unknown rather than pass.
- Which objective revision, metric, unit, direction and scope define the service commitment? requirement
- Which method, equipment, sampling interval and uncertainty qualify the observed quality? measurement
- Which profile evaluation records met, unmet or insufficient evidence without converting a target into a measurement? decision
Traffic aggregates and observation scope
Attach traffic summaries with observation scope, period, direction, unit and derivation. Preserve loss and sampling limitations. Aggregation must avoid overlapping counters and cannot be treated as billing evidence without a separate accepted profile.
Traffic aggregates and observation scope
Attach traffic summaries with observation scope, period, direction, unit and derivation. Preserve loss and sampling limitations. Aggregation must avoid overlapping counters and cannot be treated as billing evidence without a separate accepted profile.
- Which exporter, observation domain, period, direction and unit delimit the traffic summary? measurement
- Which sampling, lost records, resets or overlapping observation points affect this aggregate? quality
- Which input references and transformation revision allow this aggregate to be traced without embedding raw flows? provenance
Record governance Proposed local grouping for record governance of a communications service.
Evidence revisions and service incidents
Proposed local record policy: attach scoped incident and restoration assertions with provenance. Preserve contradictory observations and distinguish revision from service identity. An artifact hash detects byte changes, not truth, legal authority or authenticity by itself.
Evidence revisions and service incidents
Proposed local record policy: attach scoped incident and restoration assertions with provenance. Preserve contradictory observations and distinguish revision from service identity. An artifact hash detects byte changes, not truth, legal authority or authenticity by itself.
- Which incident or restoration assertion affects which part of the service and during what interval? event
- Which agent, activity and source revisions support the assurance record? provenance
- Which contradictory, stale or unavailable evidence prevents accepting the proposed record revision? validation
Disclosure, retention and disposal
Proposed local policy requires purpose-bound access and profile-defined retention. Aggregate traffic can still reveal people or confidential operations. Release only reviewed projections; disposal records distinguish payload erasure, remaining lawful evidence and external copies.
Disclosure, retention and disposal
Proposed local policy requires purpose-bound access and profile-defined retention. Aggregate traffic can still reveal people or confidential operations. Release only reviewed projections; disposal records distinguish payload erasure, remaining lawful evidence and external copies.
- Which role, purpose and artifact-level scope authorize access to this service evidence? access
- Which suppression or disclosure review prevents re-identification and exposure of sensitive operations in an aggregate? privacy
- Which retention trigger, hold and disposal evidence govern each copy without silently promising external erasure? retention
Classifiers Filled
- Family
- World Models
- Category
- Information and virtual systems
- Entry kind
- entity
- Navigation path
- NAV.INF.COM.SVC
- Domain
- INF.COM.SVC
- Industry
- Cross-industry
- Tags
- communicationsserviceinf.com.svc
- Also called
- F9
What it is Filled
One operator-scoped persistent service record. Service-owned assertions refer to separately mastered resources, parties, infrastructure, commitments and observations. Proposed research structure, not an operational telecom controller.
In scope
- Identity, roles, lifecycle and service-facing connectivity.
- Coverage, authority dependencies, objectives and aggregate assurance evidence.
- Provenance, controlled disclosure and record continuity.
Out of scope
- Physical infrastructure, spectrum allocation masters, address/number registries and routing control.
- Messages, subscriber dossiers, billing ledgers, active measurement and legal determinations.
Why it exists Filled
Describe a persistent communications service provision and the scoped evidence supporting its dependencies, capability and assurance.
Distinguishing features Derived, awaiting review
- Unlike WM-ORG-001: Candidate binding for operator, customer and regulator parties; no party master is copied.
- Unlike WM-SFT-018: Candidate service demarcation and logical endpoint binding; endpoint ownership remains external.
- Unlike WM-BLT-003: Candidate infrastructure-network realization reference; service identity is not cable identity.
- Unlike WM-SFT-016: Candidate versioned commitment reference; legal agreement and remedies remain external.
- Unlike WM-SFT-017: Candidate observation reference for quality and operational evidence.
- Unlike WM-XCT-001: Candidate stewardship and authority reference; no universal commons ownership is asserted.
- Unlike WM-XCT-035: Candidate retention-policy binding; adopting policy must specify applicable copy-level rules.
- Unlike WM-ACT-027: Optional interaction evidence reference; message content and sessions retain separate masters.
- Unlike RFC 9083: Conceptual RDAP projection only; no executable conformance mapping is supplied.
- Unlike Legacy F9: Reconcile the legacy multi-object domain into a service entity with external dependencies. Reject automatic grant reversion, universal public lookup and inherited conformance claims.
Note: Derived from boundary notes against neighbouring models.
What robots and AI may and may not do Derived, awaiting review
Must not
- Spectrum, numbering, emergency-access, lawful-access and retention obligations require competent profile review; no automated legal inference.
- Deny by default; authorize role and purpose at bundle, layer, finding and artifact scopes.
- A public standard or registry URL never grants access to local service data.
May
- Register a local service record: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Record master identity, service class and party-role references.
- Revise a service dependency: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Record effective-dated endpoint, resource or interconnection references.
- Attach an assurance observation: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Record quality, coverage, traffic or incident evidence with scoped provenance.
- Evaluate evidence sufficiency: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Assess a proposed local assertion against an explicitly supplied profile.
- Prepare a restricted projection: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Build a local preview under an approved disclosure profile.
- Record retirement or disposal evidence: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Record a supported retirement assertion and separate copy-specific disposal outcomes.
Note: Derived from functions, policies, CRUD and access rules; prohibitions were not authored for agents as such.
Moral aspects Derived, awaiting review
- Numbering, spectrum, privacy, emergency access and retention require an adopting jurisdiction and competent review.
Note: Sentences mentioning harm, privacy, consent or similar, collected from the specification.
Owners Filled
Steward
Declare an accountable service-record steward role and escalation contact; no brand owner is prescribed.
Roles
- Service steward
- Maintains service identity and approved local revisions.
- Evidence custodian
- Maintains provenance, integrity and copy-specific retention.
- Assurance reviewer
- Checks objective scope, measurement limitations and contradictory evidence.
- Access reviewer
- Approves purpose-limited projections and examines disclosure risk.
- Domain authority reviewer
- Resolves spectrum, numbering and jurisdictional authority questions without granting rights through this model.
Links to other meta-models Filled
references
- WM-ORG-001 - Candidate binding for operator, customer and regulator parties; no party master is copied.
- WM-SFT-018 - Candidate service demarcation and logical endpoint binding; endpoint ownership remains external.
- WM-BLT-003 - Candidate infrastructure-network realization reference; service identity is not cable identity.
- WM-SFT-016 - Candidate versioned commitment reference; legal agreement and remedies remain external.
- WM-SFT-017 - Candidate observation reference for quality and operational evidence.
- WM-XCT-001 - Candidate stewardship and authority reference; no universal commons ownership is asserted.
- WM-XCT-035 - Candidate retention-policy binding; adopting policy must specify applicable copy-level rules.
- WM-ACT-027 - Optional interaction evidence reference; message content and sessions retain separate masters.
aligned
- RFC 9083 - Conceptual RDAP projection only; no executable conformance mapping is supplied.
neighbor
- WM-ORG-001 - Candidate binding for operator, customer and regulator parties; no party master is copied.
- WM-SFT-018 - Candidate service demarcation and logical endpoint binding; endpoint ownership remains external.
- WM-BLT-003 - Candidate infrastructure-network realization reference; service identity is not cable identity.
- WM-SFT-016 - Candidate versioned commitment reference; legal agreement and remedies remain external.
- WM-SFT-017 - Candidate observation reference for quality and operational evidence.
- WM-XCT-001 - Candidate stewardship and authority reference; no universal commons ownership is asserted.
- WM-XCT-035 - Candidate retention-policy binding; adopting policy must specify applicable copy-level rules.
- WM-ACT-027 - Optional interaction evidence reference; message content and sessions retain separate masters.
- RFC 9083 - Conceptual RDAP projection only; no executable conformance mapping is supplied.
- Legacy F9 - Reconcile the legacy multi-object domain into a service entity with external dependencies. Reject automatic grant reversion, universal public lookup and inherited conformance claims.
What else AI and robots need to interact with it Incomplete
Identity and identifiers required Filled
- Authoritative master-system identifier with issuer namespace.
- Native source identifier with source authority.
- Locally assigned opaque identifier when neither exists.
Direct properties not applicable Not applicable
Not applicable
Institutional or informational subject: no invented physical properties.
Recognition optional Missing, in the backlog
Not described yet. This gap is in the card backlog.
Capabilities and actions required Filled
- Register a local service record: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Record master identity, service class and party-role references.
- Revise a service dependency: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Record effective-dated endpoint, resource or interconnection references.
- Attach an assurance observation: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Record quality, coverage, traffic or incident evidence with scoped provenance.
- Evaluate evidence sufficiency: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Assess a proposed local assertion against an explicitly supplied profile.
- Prepare a restricted projection: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Build a local preview under an approved disclosure profile.
- Record retirement or disposal evidence: Proposed, unimplemented local operation. Record a supported retirement assertion and separate copy-specific disposal outcomes.
Hazards and failure modes optional Missing, in the backlog
Not described yet. This gap is in the card backlog.
Standards and interfaces required Derived, awaiting review
- A Framework for Network Slices in Networks Built from IETF Technologies
- PROV-O: The PROV Ontology
Context of use required Filled
- International technical references do not establish local legal applicability.
- Numbering, spectrum, privacy, emergency access and retention require an adopting jurisdiction and competent review.
Sources Filled
- Service Models Explained - IETF
- A Framework for Network Slices in Networks Built from IETF Technologies - IETF
- Specification of the IP Flow Information Export Protocol for the Exchange of Flow Information - IETF
- Number Resources - IANA
- The international public telecommunication numbering plan - ITU
- Radio Regulations - ITU
- PROV-O: The PROV Ontology - W3C
- User related QoS parameter definitions and measurements; Part 4: Internet access - ETSI
- JSON Responses for the Registration Data Access Protocol (RDAP) - IETF
- BGP Prefix Origin Validation - IETF
Open questions
- Restore independent external review before canonical or publishable-draft promotion.
- Verify current source editions, errata, licensing, full normative texts and applicable national authority records.
- Develop executable profiles and fixtures for number reuse, non-radio service, disputed authority, stale routing evidence, partial outage, missing telemetry, overlapping traffic counters and privacy-preserving disposal.
- Independent external provider review is absent; local no-tools self-audit is not independent review.
- Direct HTTP status, content hashes, current versions and RFC update/errata chains remain unverified.
- Full E.164 (02/2026), Radio Regulations text and national authority records were not reviewed.
- Nested instance schemas, protocol bindings and executable fixtures are not implemented.
- Technology-specific mobile, satellite, optical, broadcast, emergency-access and accessibility profiles require additional research.
- Commercial settlement, billing, subscriber identity, message contents and network control are outside this root.
Machine files
Provenance
world-models research · reviewable-draft
Built from: models/wm-com-001-communications-service/spec.yaml