Using the International Mobile station Equipment Identity (IMEI) Uniform Resource Name (URN) as an Instance ID
draft-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instanceid-13
Technical Summary:
This specification defines how the Uniform Resource Name namespace
reserved for the GSMA (GSM Association) identities and its sub-
namespace for the IMEI (International Mobile station Equipment
Identity) can be used as an instance-id as specified in RFC 5626 [1]
and also as used by RFC 5627 [2]. Its purpose is to fulfil the
requirements in RFC 5626 [1] that state "If a URN scheme other than
UUID is used, the UA MUST only use URNs for which an RFC (from the
IETF stream) defines how the specific URN needs to be constructed and
used in the "+sip.instance" Contact header field parameter for
outbound behavior."
Working Group Summary:
Was the document considered in any WG, and if so, why was
it not adopted as a work item there? Was there controversy
about particular points that caused the WG to not adopt the
document?
This document has been reviewed in the DISPATCH WG. The DISPATCH WG does
not progress any documents as WG documents. The DISPATCH WG selects one
the following actions for contributions to the WG that have been
adequately reviewed and discussed:
- None in the case of work items for which there is inadequate interest
or feedback indicates that the work should not be progressed (e.g., it's
a bad idea or not within scope for RAI area or IETF)
- New work item in currently chartered WG
- New WG or mini-WG in the case where the deliverable is likely a single
document - e.g. a new SIP header
- IETF official BoF - typically for work items that are of broad interest
and potential impact within the RAI area and across areas.
- Individual/AD sponsored - for items limited in scope and applicability
Individual/AD sponsored was the consensus of the DISPATCH WG for this
document and the AD(s) agreed to progress the document. There was a fair
amount of controversy around the progression of this draft due to the
concerns raised by Cullen Jennings with regards to privacy, security and
interop/compatibility concerns. However, those concerns were resolved
prior to this request for publication.
Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
review, on what date was the request posted?
This document is required for the 3GPP/IMS specifications, thus any
vendor that implements the 3GPP specifications follows this
specification. Cullen Jennings performed a detailed review of this
document and raised a number of issues, in particular around
interoperability, privacy, and security, which have been resolved to his
satisfaction. Several other WG members have reviewed the document in
detail and have agreed it to be ready for publication including Paul
Kyzivat, Hadriel Kaplan, and Dale Worley (amongst others). Dale did an
excellent job in summarizing issues and helping to resolve concerns
while the document was being updated and discussed on the mailing list.
James Yu provided a detailed review of the final versions of this
document.
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
Director?
Mary Barnes (DISPATCH WG co-chair) is the Document Shepherd. Gonzalo
Camarillo is the Responsible AD.