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@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2013 10:48 PM Central Standard Time To: John C Klensin <john@xxxxxxx> Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx <ietf@xxxxxxxx> 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.