Re: [Dime] RFC 4006 bis

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#aaa-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