-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
wayne wrote:
| Again, the PRA RFC has IPR claims. It is my understanding (IANAL)
| that there is a very good chance that these license offered with the
| PRA is incompatible with the GPL, and may have other problems. There
| are significant MTAs out there (e.g. Postfix and Exim) along with spam
| filters and MUAs that the current PRA license would prevent the
| implementation of SenderID.
|
| If, indeed, the PRA license is incompatible, I do not think we should
| advance it as an RFC.
Licenses which limit a technology make the supporting RFC a waste of
time. I won't use it... nor will I support it's use if there are
artificial limits created by licensing.
|>5) Proposals must not have gratuitous incompatibilities with an
|> installed base.
|
|
| It is my understanding that most of the problems between SPF-classic
| (e.g. the installed base of SPF records) and Sender-ID have been
| resolved.
|
|
|
| If forced to hum today, I would have to say that SenderID is not ready
| for submission as a standard-track RFC. We don't have much time to
| fix things before IETF-60. It is my gut feel that we will not be able
| to do a working group last call until after IETF-60, pushing the whole
| schedule back by several weeks or a month.
I usually don't give a single ditto as it's not typically useful but in
this case I think that would be the wrong approach so... like a clarion
bell let me say as clearly as possible... ME TOO!
NB. Let's get on with it! Shall we?
- --
Chuck Mead
csm(_at_)moongroup(_dot_)com
Chief Tech @ http://moongroup.com - http://anirononline.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFA9Cnjv6Gjsf2pQ0oRAhpIAJwIA+UosQF9DsdgA6aIHsmYWQf4kACfdOIZ
tn4Mhvr+lx0MZUULS6buhWM=
=LYAN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----