PROTO questionnaire for: draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-16
To be Published as: Informational
Prepared by: Mary Barnes (mary.ietf.barnes@gmail.com) on 12 July 2013
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?
Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated
in the title page header?
This document is requested to be published as Informational. This
document defines no new protocol elements. A new entry is added to an
existing registry (URN Registry), which requires IETF
consensus/review. Thus Informational is appropriate. This RFC type is
indicated on the title page.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for
approved documents. The approval announcement contains the
following sections:
Technical Summary:
This specification defines a Uniform Resource Name namespace for the
GSMA (GSM Association) and a sub-namespace for the IMEI (International
Mobile station Equipment Identity), and associated parameter for the
IMEISV (International Mobile station Equipment Identity and Software
Version number). The IMEI is 15 decimal digits long and the IMEISV is
16 decimal digits long and both are encoded using Binary Encoded
Decimal (BCD). The IMEI and IMEISV were introduced as part of the
specification for Global System for Mobile communications(GSM) and are
also now incorporated by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)
as part of the 3GPP specification for GSM, the Universal Mobile
Telecommunications System (UMTS) and 3GPP LTE (Long Term Evolution).
The IMEI and IMEISV are used to uniquely identify Mobile Equipment
within these systems and are managed by the GSMA.
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 discussed 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 no
controversy around this decision.
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. There was a review of the new URN namespace defined by
this document on the URN-NID mailing list (by Alfred Hoenes) and the
document was deemed ready to progress. Several other individuals
reviewed the document including Lisa Dusseault, Cullen Jennings, and
Dale Worley. James Yu provided a detailed review of the final versions
of this document. Cullen Jennings in particular raised issues around
the security (or lack thereof) of the IMEI, which have been described
in the 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.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was
performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of
the document is not ready for publication, please explain
why the document is being forwarded to the IESG.
The Document Shepherd has thoroughly reviewed this version of the
document.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth
or breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
There are no concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular
or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational
complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization?
If so, describe the review that took place.
No.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or
she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document,
or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the interested community has discussed those issues
and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document,
detail those concerns here.
There are no specific concerns or issues.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions
of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.
Yes.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.
Yes. Five IPR disclosures have been filed for this document (and the
companion document draft-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instanceid). I
posted a note to the DISPATCH WG to determine there were concerns with
regards to the newer IPR disclosures and there were no concerns
raised.
(9) How solid is the consensus of the interested community behind this
document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent, or does the interested
community as a whole understand and agree with it?
There is WG consensus that AD sponsored is the best approach for
progressing this document. No one has expressed concerns about its
progression.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
publicly available.)
No.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough;
this check needs to be thorough.
The document was checked using idnits 2.12.17. There is a warning
with regards to an unused reference, which can be appropriately
addressed by the RFC editor or in any revisions made prior to
publication.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
reviews.
This document was reviewed on the URN-NID mailing list.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready
for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their
completion?
No.
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director
in the Last Call procedure.
No.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header,
listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction?
If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction,
explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed.
If this information is not in the document, explain why the
interested community considers it unnecessary.
No.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body
of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the
document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations
in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries
have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA
registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future
registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new
registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).
This document clearly identifies the IANA considerations. This
document registers the Formal URN Namespace 'GSMA' in the existing
Registry of URN Namespaces.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG
would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new
registries.
This document defines no new IANA registries.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by to validate
sections of the document written in a formal language, such as
XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
Alfred Hoenes reviewed the ABNF for the URN in an early version of the
document. The ABNF for the current version was validated using Bill
Fenner's ABNF web parsing tool.