-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Bitten by the Reply-to! I sent this directly to Harry instead of the
list which was my intent.
Harry Katz wrote:
| On Wednesday, July 14, 2004 10:54 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
|
|
|>I second your concerns. This is completely disturbing. Not
|>only do I think the proposals are faulty, will incur a high
|>degree of compatibility issues, will translates to a high
|>revamping and resign cost, I now have to worry about
|>fighting what would be prior art issues anyway?
|>
|>No, there is got to be a better answer to all this. This is
|>fast becoming a "MICROSOFT" only solution and Bill Gates
|>recent quote saying using security as a "Strategic
|>Competitive Advantage" might come back to bite him in the
|>anti-trust area.
|>
|
|
| First, please read Ted Hardie's posting about our IP filing with respect
| to the original Caller ID specification from which Sender ID is derived.
Sender ID is derived only from Caller-ID? Gee... there's a concept...
Where did SPF come from then?
| Second, to suggest that this is becoming a Microsoft only solution is
| outrageous, abusrd and without any basis in fact!
For my part I don't claim that... I worry about it but I'm not making
the claim. The issue we've been talking about though is that the
Caller-ID spec and it's attendant RAND license is being mis-applied to
what is, essentially, SPF Classic. THAT is what we're talking about and
I don't think any amount of crying that we're wasting *YOUR* time and
effort worrying about it is going to shut those of us who care about it
as an issue *UP*!
| In reality we have been working in good faith within this group to
| arrive at an Internet standard that the whole industry can support with
| the objective of addressing a problem that we are all concerned about.
| The current drafts, and the revisions we are now working on following
| last week's design review, are dramatically different from our original
| Caller ID proposal -- a fact that reflects our willingness to compromise
| with others in order to arrive at a common solution.
'zactly... thus we need to change the point of reference for the license
as we are *NOT* talking about Caller-ID anymore. We are talking about
SPF as far as I can see and that's not under RAND or anything else so
far as licensing is concerned. Is it?
I suspect that if someone would simply clarify it we'd likely be
satisfied as I strongly believe what we've been discussing is *NOT*
Called-ID which, consequently, kicks the CID RAND restriction to the
curb doesn't it?
<snippage>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFA9aiWv6Gjsf2pQ0oRArCHAJkBeTLWkhjTmnUjshe10fR8OZ73dQCdEjUL
VJmu/58rLGvJeunFzZMNIiE=
=3nNb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----