Subject: Re: [urn] draft-atarius-dispatch-meid-urn-17

From: R Atarius <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 03:36:57 +0000 (UTC)

Hi Dale,
I am a bit lost with your claim. Anyways, as I asked you before I can ask you again if I can leave as it is since it may be good for the reader to have that information in the document. Since I have yet not read the link you sent so I am not sure what the Wikipedia has listed and if it is better than the text I have in the draft. However, if you agree that it is beneficial for the reader to have this in the document but you think that text needs to be massaged to be better, please let me know.
ThanksRoozbeh

      From: Dale R. Worley <[email-masked]>
 To: R Atarius <[email-masked]> 
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
 Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 8:08 PM
 Subject: Re: draft-atarius-dispatch-meid-urn-17
  
R Atarius <[email-masked]> writes:
> Hello all,
> new revision has been uploaded.
> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-atarius-dispatch-meid-urn-17.txt

Interestingly, the only item where Roozbeh did not follow my suggestion,
the description of the check digit, is thoroughly explained in the
Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_equipment_identifier
The article also discusses the relationship of MEIDs to ESNs and IMEIs.

Given that the check digit is not present in the URN and is reasonably
well documented in the public literature, I agree that there is no need
to give the somewhat elaborate details of the check digit system in the
RFC.

Dale

---

From: [email-masked] (Dale R. Worley)
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2018 22:32:57 -0400

R Atarius <[email-masked]> writes:
> I am a bit lost with your claim. Anyways, as I asked you before I can
> ask you again if I can leave as it is since it may be good for the
> reader to have that information in the document. Since I have yet not
> read the link you sent so I am not sure what the Wikipedia has listed
> and if it is better than the text I have in the draft. However, if you
> agree that it is beneficial for the reader to have this in the
> document but you think that text needs to be massaged to be better,
> please let me know.

Well, I said in the message that you quote, "I agree that there is no need
to give the somewhat elaborate details of the check digit system in the
RFC."

So:  I think there is no need to give the details of the check digit
system in the RFC.

Dale