Naming related to the eSIM and profiles

[david-bohaty-thalesgroup]

It should be agreed how to name in the documentation (and possibly also in the APIs) the main managed entities.
This naming should be consistent with the established naming in the IoT community and should also be at least similar to naming used in the official GSMA documents.

My proposal would be:

• "eSIM" to refer to the SIM that is capable of holding multiple operator profiles and supports remote SIM provisioning/profile download". eSIM is identified by "eID"
• "eSIM profile" or "profile" to refer to the subscription profile of one connectivity providers. "eSIM profile" that is installed in eSIM is identified by ICCID

This suggestions follows naming established in IoT community. As example I can share documentation that I found freely available on internet for communication modules. The documentation uses words eSIM and eSIM profile:
RG50xQ&RM5xxQ Series eSIM LPA Application Note
FGR-60G-5G-Series manual

[dsrg1803]

from 3/24/2026 team meeting discussion: this is a good suggestion and we should follow. Open discussion point: "eSIM" that support eUICC could be a soldered-in "embedded SIM" or eUICC-compliant physical SIM, do we need to further distinguish in our terms here?

[rkandoi]

Thanks @david-bohaty-thalesgroup for the comments.

The idea to use eSIM comes from the following:

• Apple (https://support.apple.com/en-us/118669) and Android ecosystems use the term eSIM for the eSIM profile (SIM Manager -> Add eSIM, Delete eSIM).
• Most Mobile Network Operators today market this technology as "Buy eSIM", "Download eSIM".

Also note that in CAMARA, the concept of "Profile" exists in specific contexts. For example, the QoS Profile, the Dedicated Network Profile, and the Application Profile. In all these cases, the "resource" is a reusable resource (i.e., referenced across multiple resources of the same type). Due to this usage in CAMARA we need to be now careful to explain in this API that each eSIM Profile is a unique instance and not usually referenced across multiple instances. May be not an issue at all?

Finally, the usage of eSIM in the URLs makes it shorter (and also the field names).

But you are absolutely right that the consumer and the IoT markets may be quite different. And in any case, the eSIM Profile is also technically the correct term.

I will update PR #23 using the following conventions:

• "eSIM Profile" case in the text / descriptions
• "EsimProfile" case in the schemas (Pascal case /UpperCamel)
• "esimProfile" case in JSON properties (camelCase)