Re: [Dime] RFC 4006 bis

For clarification, for Diameter related IANA allocation requests, it is under the responsibility of CT4 secretary.

Now, as said by Dave and Jouni, we should clarify the requirement for an IMEI specific value whereas only the IMEISV is actually used.

Regards,

Lionel

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Jouni Korhonen
> Envoyé : mardi 5 juillet 2016 18:32
> À : Dave Dolson; Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR); dime@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [Dime] RFC 4006 bis - IMEI
> 
> Designated experts would most likely be either Lionel or me. Basically the
> procedure goes like: there's a public spec (no need to be in IETF) or at least
> technical discussion (preferably in IETF) of the allocation need of the new code
> point, and once that is "done" someone does a request to IANA. Then IANA will
> contact the "expert", who evaluates the allocation requests and either grants or
> denies it. The more information there is available for the allocation requests the
> more comfortble the expert is backing up the request towards IANA.
> 
> For example various 3GPP CT group secretaries have done allocation requests to
> IANA during years.
> 
> Regarding the User-Equipment-Info-Type AVP doing the new allocation doing it
> in RFC4006bis would be "easy".. assuming we finish this discussion into an
> agreement for a need.
> 
> - Jouni
> 
> 7/5/2016, 8:31 AM, Dave Dolson kirjoitti:
> > Maryse,
> > Referring to BCP26,  https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp26,
> > You can read about "Assignment by Designated Expert" in section 3
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp26#section-3
> >
> > I don't know who the designated expert would be, but I think the first step
> would be to begin a thread on the dime mailing list to request the new
> allocation, justifying why it is needed.
> >
> > Hopefully the dime chairs can provide more insight on the process.
> >
> > -Dave
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR) [mailto:maryse.gardella@nokia.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 9:16 AM
> > To: Dave Dolson; dime@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [Dime] RFC 4006 bis - IMEI
> >
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > Do you mean, in case this new value would be needed, it is possible to handle
> this via IANA allocation w/o impacting existing RFC 4006? Could you clarify this
> for me?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Maryse
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Dolson
> > Sent: vendredi 1 juillet 2016 19:11
> > To: Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR); dime@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Dime] RFC 4006 bis - IMEI
> >
> > Maryse,
> > OK, I understand your question.
> >
> > Reading 3GPP 23.003, IMEI and IMEISV are clearly defined as different things
> in sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2.
> > And RFC4006 specifically says IMEISV.
> >
> > So I would say RFC4006 is not ambiguous.
> >
> > Also, the most recent 3GPP 32.299 indicates "The used value is 0 for the
> international mobile equipment identifier and software version according to
> 3GPP TS 23.003."
> >
> > It seems reasonable to extend to a Type 4 for IMEI, but there does not seem
> to have been a need, or there would have been an IANA allocation (which does
> not require RFC revision).
> >
> > Perhaps you could explain the need to the group?
> >
> > -Dave
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR) [mailto:maryse.gardella@nokia.com]
> > Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 9:02 AM
> > To: Dave Dolson; dime@ietf.org
> > Subject: RE: [Dime] RFC 4006 bis - IMEI
> >
> > Hi Dave,
> >
> > Indeed it was not clear to me whether the current definition explicitly excluded
> the IMEI or not.
> > I was wondering about the behavior of the client in case the Software Version
> Number (SVN) is not available.
> >
> > Otherwise if a new value is needed for this distinction, I would
> > propose the User-Equipment-Info-Type AVP to be extended with IMEI
> > value
> >
> >
> > BR
> > Maryse
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dave Dolson
> > Sent: jeudi 30 juin 2016 19:39
> > To: Gardella, Maryse (Nokia - FR); dime@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Dime] RFC 4006 bis - IMEI
> >
> > Maryse,
> >
> > If I understand correctly, you are proposing overloading a type, distinguishing
> the types only by length.
> >
> > Is there precedent for the overloading you propose, such as a 3GPP standard
> or de facto standard usage that you can cite?
> >
> > Otherwise, IANA may assign new values for new types, and we aren't short on
> space:
> > http://www.iana.org/assignments/aaa-parameters/aaa-parameters.xhtml#aa
> > a-parameters-41
> >
> >
> > -Dave
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DiME [mailto:dime-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gardella,
> > Maryse (Nokia - FR)
> > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 12:59 PM
> > To: dime@ietf.org
> > Subject: [Dime] RFC 4006 bis - IMEI
> >
> > All,
> >
> > As part of the updates to RFC 4006 I propose to consider the IMEI also when
> refering to IMEISV, otherwise it is not clear if User-Equipment-Info-Type value O
> can be used for IMEI.
> >
> >
> > In section 8.50. User-Equipment-Info-Type AVP in RFC4006,the following is
> specified:
> >
> >  IMEISV                          0
> >       The identifier contains the International Mobile Equipment
> >       Identifier and Software Version in the international IMEISV format
> >       according to 3GPP TS 23.003 [3GPPIMEI].
> >
> > Which I propose to be updated as follows:
> >
> > IMEI(SV)                          0
> >       The identifier contains the International Mobile Equipment
> >       Identifier and Software Version in the international IMEISV format,
> > 	or the International Mobile Equipment Identifier in the international
> IMEI format
> >       according to 3GPP TS 23.003 [3GPPIMEI].
> >
> >
> > Differentiation between IMEI (15 digits) and IMEISV (16 digits) is based on AVP
> length, would this work?
> >
> > BR
> > Maryse
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > DiME mailing list
> > DiME@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > DiME mailing list
> > DiME@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > DiME mailing list
> > DiME@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > DiME mailing list
> > DiME@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> DiME mailing list
> DiME@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dime

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.