IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Last Call: <draft-atarius-dispatch-meid-urn-as-instanceid-05.txt> (Using the Mobile Equipment Identity (MEID) Uniform Resource Name (URN) as an Instance ID) to Informational RFC

S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Sat, 04 November 2017 01:11 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29F6313FAD6 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 18:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=opendkim.org header.b=jBOUgulk; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.com header.b=LSd2Nck9
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id udrCCEOOh5K8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 18:11:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF6D513FAC9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 18:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([197.226.50.182]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vA41BLbI022218 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 3 Nov 2017 18:11:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1509757895; x=1509844295; bh=HTbIX1Z5a0VuDJGyYj6lGIFE7ctSYP42izkpNRzm9kY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=jBOUgulkjAmqkkr9gV/N5bFuwptPZp8t8zC19CoJfU9ojInO+MPZscsmMSyLrV48c fClx40dKj+WKjns8y1NqAI8wSYwTcuRfWxS4II4dKcxZOYhXsnUB/lu6GoCIEnNGIB nGUzMhFzMUyAE8HwonnnR+IKhzpTgRgLiufyY0Zk=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1509757895; x=1509844295; i=@elandsys.com; bh=HTbIX1Z5a0VuDJGyYj6lGIFE7ctSYP42izkpNRzm9kY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=LSd2Nck9Luhynj5HOcf/X8TO2m99bDnE9AaDiFme+2X8y0x2AQ1x8xuct/dlJuC6j M2y1aKQDG5eKuCPRE+YGoIGa/d1VNtJxE9NTAGe2v+FyTGIEXhRaF/v/0pWaUrP5e5 e6J5IBWKSKbjTRkRTRKgLw6/6n5cfBMKNvPDYB9I=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20171103174950.130619c0@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 18:10:17 -0700
To: R Atarius <r_atarius@yahoo.com>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-atarius-dispatch-meid-urn-as-instanceid-05.txt> (Using the Mobile Equipment Identity (MEID) Uniform Resource Name (URN) as an Instance ID) to Informational RFC
In-Reply-To: <14878392.1994847.1509741321099@mail.yahoo.com>
References: <150966262028.32040.15224707222922251846.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <f00e4c27-2a49-ac21-7579-0d810d2b9499@cs.tcd.ie> <039BDED8-AD0F-4AA2-8408-343D4D828751@nostrum.com> <14878392.1994847.1509741321099@mail.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/8jhP4lyWvQ6zAGrxT5wbIwjJg8Y>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2017 01:11:42 -0000

Hi Roozbeh, Ben,
At 01:35 PM 03-11-2017, R Atarius wrote:
>Just agreeing with Ben. RFC 5626 highlights that the UA could omit 
>the instance ID for private or anonymous calls. So this is the 
>problem with instance ID and not UUID, MEID, IMEI which have been 
>employed to create the instance ID.

RFC 5626 was published in 2009.  RFC 7258 was published in 2014.  Are 
the Security Considerations the same as in 2009?

The Document Shepherd write-up mentioned "his affiliation".  There 
isn't any information about affiliation in the write-up or in 
draft-atarius-dispatch-meid-urn-as-instanceid-05.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email