Martin
Further to our conversation on this topic in Berlin I now respond formerly on
the list.
3GPP has defined the mobile terminal as performing the UA role since the very
beginning of IMS. Therefore the mapping between the terminal and the instance
ID in IMS is a one to one relationship.
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin(_dot_)thomson(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 12:57 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 20 July 2013 15:34, Andrew Allen <aallen(_at_)blackberry(_dot_)com> wrote:
There are obviously always alternative design choices but why would you want
to include both a pre assigned device ID and a generated device ID in the
same message?
I think that reading this thread should provide you with ample reasons.
The instance ID in outbound has certain stability requirements that do
not strictly correspond to the lifetime of the hardware in use. The
other use cases answer very different questions, which include: is
this a stolen device, is this device authorized to use the networks,
etc... I'm certain those questions can be answered without a device
identifier traversing the network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.