A Uniform Resource Name Namespace for the Global System for Mobile Communications Association (GSMA) and the International Mobile station Equipment Identity (IMEI)
RFC 7254

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Document Action: 'A Uniform Resource Name Namespace for the Global System for Mobile communications Association (GSMA) and the International Mobile station Equipment Identity (IMEI)' to Informational RFC (draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-20.txt)

The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'A Uniform Resource Name Namespace for the Global System for Mobile
   communications Association (GSMA) and the  International Mobile
   station Equipment Identity (IMEI)'
  (draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-20.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-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn/


        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.


RFC Editor Note:

In Section 3:
OLD
           future-specifier = gsma-defined-nonempty ;GSMA defined and
                                                  ;IETF consensus
                                                  ;required
NEW
           future-specifier = gsma-defined-nonempty ;GSMA defined
END

OLD
      The GSMA will take responsibility for the NSS 'imei'.

      Additional NSS may be added for future identifiers needed by the
      GSMA using the procedure for URN NSS changes and additions
      (currently through the publication of future Informational RFCs
      approved by IETF consensus).
NEW
      The GSMA will take responsibility for the "gsma" namespace,
      including the "imei" NSS.

      Additional NSS may be added for future identifiers needed by the
      GSMA, at their discretion.  Only URNs with the "imei" NSS are
      considered to be "GSMA IMEI URNs", and use in IETF protocols of
      other NSS that might be defined in the future will require
      IETF consensus.
END

In Section 4.1:
OLD
   Any change to the format specified here requires the use of the
   procedure for URN NSS changes and additions (currently the
   publication of a future Informational RFCs approved by IETF
   consensus).
NEW
   <start new paragraph>
   Any change to the format of the "imei" NSS requires the use of
   the procedure for URN NSS changes and additions (currently the
   publication of a future Informational RFCs approved by IETF
   consensus).
END