Subject: Document Action: 'Using the International Mobile station Equipment Identity (IMEI) Uniform Resource Name (URN) as an Instance ID' to Informational RFC (draft-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instanceid-13.txt)

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 00:40:45 -0800

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Using the International Mobile station Equipment Identity (IMEI)
   Uniform Resource Name (URN) as an Instance ID'
  (draft-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instanceid-13.txt) as Informational
RFC

This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.

The IESG contact person is Gonzalo Camarillo.

A URL of this Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instanceid/

        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.