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