Equivalence is equivalence the rest seems subjective to me - is the glass half
full or half empty.
The point is they are no more or less harmful.
Can it please be explained how the IMEI URN when used as stated in
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instanceid/
Is any more harmful than as the IMEI is used today by over 90% of mobile phones
in use today worldwide?
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Brim [mailto:scott(_dot_)brim(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 03:55 PM Central Standard Time
To: Andrew Allen
Cc: tbray(_at_)textuality(_dot_)com <tbray(_at_)textuality(_dot_)com>;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
Subject: Re: Last call: draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-16.txt
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Andrew Allen
<aallen(_at_)blackberry(_dot_)com> wrote:
Tim
The quote is from RFC 5626 which also states:
"3.1. Summary of Mechanism
Each UA has a unique instance-id that stays the same for this UA even if the
UA reboots or is power cycled."
Since the UUID in the instance ID is also static how is this significantly
different in terms of privacy concerns from the IMEI being used as an
instance ID?
You're not demonstrating that an IMEI is just as good, you're
demonstrating that a UUID is just as bad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
information, privileged material (including material protected by the
solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public
information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended
recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error,
please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your
system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission
by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.