Subject: Re: Resubmission of gsma imei urn for review

From: Leslie Daigle <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:57:43 -0400

Sorry, I didn't catch this in the last iteration on
urn-nid mailing list.

The "Community Considerations" section of the document
is _empty_, and that needs to be fixed.

Also, the "Namespace Considerations" section does not
respond to the requirements laid out in RFC 3406.  Your
section describes why you selected a URN, without giving
clarity about why a _new_ URN namespace is needed, IMO.

(On the bright side -- I think some of the text you
have for "Namespace Considerations" would be useful
in the "Community Considerations" section :-) ).

Leslie.

[For easy reference -- the sections of text in the current
document:]

> 6.  Community considerations
> 
> 
> 7.  Namespace considerations
> 
>    A URN was considered the most appropriate URI to represent the IMEI
>    and IMEISV as these identifiers may be used and transported similarly
>    to the Universally Unique Identifier (UUID)which is defined as a URN
>    in [10].  Since specifications for protocols that are used to
>    transport device identifiers often require the device identifier to
>    be globally unique and in the URN format it is necessary that the
>    IMEI and IMEISV URN formats are defined.

Michael Montemurro wrote:
> The draft for a gsma imei urn has been updated based on earlier
> comments and is now posted for review at the following link:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-01.txt
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Mike
> 

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Reality:
      Yours to discover."
                                 -- ThinkingCat
Leslie Daigle
[email-masked]
-------------------------------------------------------------------