The reason why the IMEI namespace is being registered as a GSMA namespace and
not as part of the 3GPP namespace is that the GSMA has the responsibility for
IMEI assignment and hence in maintaining uniqueness of the namespace. It has
nothing to do with IPR which was extensively discussed on the dispatch list.
The primary purpose of the IMEI is for preventing use of stolen mobile phones
and enabling emergency calls to be made from mobiles that don't have a valid
subscription.
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: S Moonesamy [mailto:sm+ietf(_at_)elandsys(_dot_)com]
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 10:48 PM Central Standard Time
To: John C Klensin <john(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
Cc: Tim Bray <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
Hi John,
At 18:23 20-07-2013, John C Klensin wrote:
See my earlier note, but mostly to aid in getting the
documentation right. For example, to the extent that the recent
discussion results in a more complete treatment of privacy
and/or security considerations in the documentation, that is a
net improvement and added value.
There was a Last Call for draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-01 in
2007. The draft was sponsored by an Apps
AD. draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-04 was evaluated (I did not
verify the details) in 2009. An IPR disclosure, about a patent filed
several years ago, was filed after that evaluation. The DISCUSS got
cleared automatically. draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-08 was
dispatched to RAI in 2011.
3GPP was assigned a URN in 2008. The shepherd write-up
for draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-16 mentions that "this document
is required for the 3GPP/IMS specification, thus any
vendor that implements the 3GPP specifications follows this
specification". The significant difference between the 3GPP URN and
the requested GSMA URN is that there is an IPR disclosure on that latter.
One of the questions asked by Tim Bray was about the WiFi-only
scenario. That was raised previously through a DISCUSS as the softphone issue.
The privacy discussion might cause some discontent. As for whether
the draft will gain consensus, well, what can I say; if it is the
consensus of the IETF to support state-sponsored surveillance there
is nothing I can do about it. :-)
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.