Subject: RE: [Enum] Comments on ID on new ENUM service "mobileweb"

From: "Fullbrook Kim \(UK\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:14:46 -0400

There is a more fundamental problem with the use of Enumservices here
which Ray Anderson's note mentions in passing.  The MSISDN of a mobile
surfer - whether Wap, web or whatever - would not normally be made
available outside an operators network. There would be significant
privacy concerns about doing this. Can you imagine the implications of
surfing the Net from your phone and presenting your CLI to each and
every web site ? 

In summary I can't see how the proposal could work for web providers
because the MSISDN would not be available.

A better solution would be that which was sent to me in a private email
"I think it is more important that we encourage web site developers to
make good use of the HTTP_ACCEPT header to provide optimum experience
for different devices."

(There's also the possibility that I may have interpreted the proposal
incorrectly. It's a confusing I-D)

-----Original Message-----

=====================================================
This electronic message contains information from O2 which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or address above) immediately.
=====================================================

From: enum-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:enum-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Russell, Nick, VF UK - Technology (TS)
Sent: 18 July 2005 09:17
To: Ray Anderson; enum at ietf.org
Cc: tim at bango.com
Subject: RE: [Enum] Comments on ID on new ENUM service "mobileweb"

Hi Ray,

I agree with you that IMEI can stay the same while the browser changes.
Especially if the phone is just being used as a modem for a laptop, for
instance. My argument was more that the IMEI would perhaps give a
*better* indication than the MSISDN e.g. default browser for the phone
*currently* being used by the subscriber.

Cheers,
Nick

P.S.
Another reason why WAP push is used instead of MMS, is that it's more
likely to get past any MMSC "spam" filters and/or adult content filters!
;-)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Anderson [mailto:ray at bango.com] 
> Sent: 16 July 2005 17:32
> To: Russell, Nick, VF UK - Technology (TS); enum at ietf.org
> Cc: tim at bango.com
> Subject: Re: [Enum] Comments on ID on new ENUM service "mobileweb"
> 
> Nick,
> 
> Using IMEI to determine browser capabilities is not a very 
> common practice.
> 
> Very few content providers know the MSISDN let alone the IMEI.
> 
> Moreover, the browser can easily change while the IMEI stays 
> static (e.g.
> switching from the factory shipped browser to another, or by 
> using a browser proxy.
> 
> I do know that a few operators have to take a guess at the 
> browser / phone type, because they want to send MMS messages, 
> which are best optimized to target device type.
> 
> That's also one of the main reasons why Content Providers 
> have given MMS a wide berth and prefer to use WAP push or 
> equivalents to deliver multimedia services.
> 
> Ray

_______________________________________________
enum mailing list
enum at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/enum

---

From: Jim Reid <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:19:06 -0400

On Jul 18, 2005, at 13:13, Fullbrook Kim ((UK)) wrote:
Can you imagine the implications of
surfing the Net from your phone and presenting your CLI to each and
every web site ?
No I can't. Please enlighten me. As far as I'm aware no internet 
websites look for CLI from their clients. Unless a client's  browser 
disclosed that info, how could a HTTP server know if it was talking to 
a phone as opposed to (say) a laptop?