Fair enough. I think it would be reasonable to ask that: - the draft include the word “privacy” - the draft discuss the issues around relying on an identifier that persists across changes in device ownership
There may be an issue concerning a SIP-related identifier which is unavailable on millions of mobile devices which do not have IMEIs, but it’s quite possible that it’s non-applicable in the context of the draft. -T On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 6:23 PM, John C Klensin <j...@jck.com> wrote: > > > --On Saturday, July 20, 2013 11:36 -0700 Tim Bray > <tb...@textuality.com> wrote: > > > So if it's going to be used, exactly as specified, whatever > > we do, then what value is added by the IETF process? -T > > See my earlier note, but mostly to aid in getting the > documentation right. For example, to the extent that the recent > discussion results in a more complete treatment of privacy > and/or security considerations in the documentation, that is a > net improvement and added value. > > john > > > >
