Re: Last call: draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-16.txt

[Andrew Allen <aallen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think IANA registration of namespaces has a lot of value.

From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 01:36 PM Central Standard Time
To: Andrew Allen
Cc: scott.brim@xxxxxxxxx <scott.brim@xxxxxxxxx>; sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Last call: draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-16.txt
 

So if it’s going to be used, exactly as specified, whatever we do, then what value is added by the IETF process?  -T

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Andrew Allen <aallen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The URN containing the IMEI is used by all mobile phones that support voice over LTE. It is a dependency for 3GPP release 8 (which was completed about end of 2008). So yes it is going to be used and its more than 3 years of 3GPP work invested and is already incorporated into many devices.

In the pre-existing circuit switched systems the IMEI is delivered to the network as the device identifier and it is also necessary to deliver the same device identifier to the network when using SIP so that when handover takes place between packet switched and circuit switched the network can correlate the communication as being with the same device.

Regulations also require the IMEI to be delivered to the network.
This associated draft describes how 3GPP uses the IMEI as a SIP instance ID and the reasons why:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instanceid/

----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Brim [mailto:scott.brim@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 06:23 AM Central Standard Time
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Last call: draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-16.txt

Thanks, SM, for finding what I said back in 2010.  I still think this
is architected wrong, conflating devices with communication endpoints
higher up the stack, and steers us toward a path toward eventually
"needing" to reduce privacy even more.  However, 3GPP has apparently
already already started marching down that path.  Could our liaison
explain the situation there?  Is anyone actually going to use it?  Is
this a done deal - do we have to support it because otherwise 3 years
of 3GPP work get undone?

Scott

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
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.