Subject: Re: [dispatch] Revisionofdraft-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instanceid

From: Itsuma TANAKA <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 23:54:59 +0900

Dear All,

I work for NTT DOCOMO, Inc in Japan. and attend various 3GPP meetings (SA2,
CT1, CT4, and CT3) and GSM Association (GSMA) Interworking, Roaming Expert
Group (IREG), Roaming in LTE (RILTE) and Packet subgroup meetings.  I serve
as a Vice Chair of GSMA IREG RILTE and Packet subgroups.

I would like to express my support of draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn and the
associated draft-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instanceid.

The reasons are exactly same as what Ricky Kaura (Samsung) expressed.  A
various 3GPP specifications (IMS Registration in 3GPP TS24.229, IMS
emergency calls in TS23.237 and TS24.237, ICS in TS23.292 and TS24.292), and
GSMA document (GSMA PRD IR.92, "IMS Profile for Voice and SMS") are using
these drafts.
 
These internet drafts are very important to support various key features in
3GPP and to enable GSMA Voice over LTE.  Therefore, I kindly would like ask
that this work is progressed as quickly as possible in IETF. 

Best regards,

Itsuma Tanaka
NTT DOCOMO

---

From: Henry Sinnreich <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 15:10:04 -0600

Such work in the IETF would require IMO an explanation about its
compatibility with the open, e2e architectural and other technical
principles of the Internet. It actually seems to be the opposite.

For this reason, such work may be better accomplished in other
organizations, so as to avoid architectural principle and other technical
conflicts. Simplicity and scalability comes to mind among other, though this
is better discussed elsewhere.

Thanks,

Henry Sinnreich

On 3/9/11 8:54 AM, "Itsuma TANAKA" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> dispatch mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch

---

From: "Andrew Allen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 17:45:11 -0600

Henry

Would you care to elaborate and explain your specific concerns?  How is what is defined in these drafts potentially incompatible with the open, e2e architectural and in any other way technical conflict with the Internet?

The two drafts do the following things:

One draft simply defines and registers with IANA a URN namespace according to the procedures defined for doing that.

The other draft simply defines how this URN can be used as an instance ID as required by RFC 5626. 

SIP and the mechanisms in RFC 5626 are already being used in networks defined by 3GPP and are being deployed by members of the GSMA. 3GPP and GSMA have already defined this behavior using their existing device Identifiers for instance ID generation in their specifications. These drafts complete the process doing things the right way by reserving the namespace and defining the usage of it using the IETF defined mechanisms for doing that.

Andrew

----- Original Message -----
From: Henry Sinnreich [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 03:10 PM
To: Itsuma TANAKA <[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Revisionofdraft-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instanceid

Thanks,

Henry Sinnreich

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.