esr(_at_)thyrsus(_dot_)com (Eric S. Raymond) wrote on 11.10.04 in
<20041011153934(_dot_)GC7804(_at_)thyrsus(_dot_)com>:
Kai Henningsen <kaih(_at_)khms(_dot_)westfalen(_dot_)de>:
Why is that bad?
There were, actually, two bad parts:
1. Two major open-source development groups felt it was both necessary
and appropriate to state that they would not implement SenderID
regardless of IETF's decision. This is specifically what I meant
by routing around the IETF.
You are confusing "will not" with "cannot" here. It's not "we don't want
SenderID", it's "we cannot use SenderID even if we want to".
Thus, it is about (legal) facts, not about refusing cooperation.
2. IETF failed to take any position opposing the patent in spite of
both prior art and the belief of key participants that Microsoft
deliberately lied about its position and intentions. By doing so, IETF
signaled that there will be no downside to even the most blatant
patent raid on a development standard, and invited future raids by
Microsoft and others.
Given that the WG was shutdown with no ratified standard, this also seems
like a serious misrepresentation.
The raid *failed* - thanks to the IETF doing the right thing.
MfG Kai
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf