Re: Mentoring Electronic Participants [was Invitation to request an IETF mentor]

2013-07-21 Thread Fred Baker
On Jul 20, 2013, at 5:47 PM, Hector Santos wrote: > What generally happens when an individual I-D is submitted? Is there an > overseer of the submissions and decides there is something that interest the > IETF? Hmm. Define "IETF". It is in some sense an organization (I call it a "disorgani

Re: Last call: draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-16.txt

2013-07-21 Thread S Moonesamy
At 00:03 21-07-2013, Andrew Allen wrote: The reason why the IMEI namespace is being registered as a GSMA namespace and not as part of the 3GPP namespace is that the GSMA has the responsibility for IMEI assignment and hence in maintaining uniqueness of the namespace. It has nothing to do with IP

Re: Last call: draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-16.txt

2013-07-21 Thread Tim Bray
Look, I don’t remotely understand the 3gpp universe, and I acknowledge John Klensin’s point about the advantages of registering things, in general. Having said that, I worry a little bit that URNs are URIs and there are lots of specs out there that say “use any URI” and I sure wouldn’t want to see

Re: Mentoring Electronic Participants [was Invitation to request an IETF mentor]

2013-07-21 Thread Pete Resnick
On 7/20/13 10:47 AM, Hector Santos wrote: I was somewhat hoping to see more done in the mentor area of assisting electronic participants. Of coarse, this sort of electronic mentoring it could include an end goal to get folks more involved with the IETF directly, i.e. go to meetings, become lead

Re: Mentoring Electronic Participants [was Invitation to request an IETF mentor]

2013-07-21 Thread Brian Haberman
Hi Hector, On 7/20/13 11:47 AM, Hector Santos wrote: Overall, I think the IETF has a marketing problem addressing its #1 customer base - electronic participants. By this term, I assume (based on later text) you mean remote participants... I was somewhat hoping to see more done in the mentor

Re: Last call: draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-16.txt

2013-07-21 Thread Andrew Allen
Tim Seems the text got munged with some copy pasting so here it is corrected: Firstly as stated in http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instanceid/ the use of the IMEI as a SIP Instance ID only pertains to usage of SIP with the 3GPP IMS and if a device is not using I

Re: Last call: draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-16.txt

2013-07-21 Thread Andrew Allen
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-allen-dispatch-imei-urn-as-instanceid is also required in order to use the IMEI as a SIP instance ID. So just not registering the sub namespace doesn't avoid the IETF having to address the issue. As John pointed out having the sub namespace reviewed by IET

Re: Last call: draft-montemurro-gsma-imei-urn-16.txt

2013-07-21 Thread Andrew Allen
The reason why the IMEI namespace is being registered as a GSMA namespace and not as part of the 3GPP namespace is that the GSMA has the responsibility for IMEI assignment and hence in maintaining uniqueness of the namespace. It has nothing to do with IPR which was extensively discussed on the