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

[Tim Bray <tbray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Fair enough.  I think it would be reasonable to ask that:

- the draft include the word “privacy”

- the draft discuss the issues around relying on an identifier that persists across changes in device ownership

There may be an issue concerning a SIP-related identifier which is unavailable on millions of mobile devices which do not have IMEIs, but it’s quite possible that it’s non-applicable in the context of the draft.  -T

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 6:23 PM, John C Klensin <john@xxxxxxx> wrote:

--On Saturday, July 20, 2013 11:36 -0700 Tim Bray

<tbray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

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.

  john