In
<C6DDA43B91BFDA49AA2F1E473732113E010BE955(_at_)mou1wnexm05(_dot_)vcorp(_dot_)ad(_dot_)vrsn(_dot_)com>
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> writes:
You corporate guys appear to have bunched together in a group and *DO
NOT* appear to want to *HEAR* what the non-corporates think!
It is very clear that none of the people raising objections in this
thread have bothered to read the archives of this mailing list.
PHB: That's not true and darn well you know it.
The issue was raised, we are waiting for clarification from the lawyers.
Yes, we are waiting, and waiting, and waiting some more and we are now
into the "working group last call month".
Accusing Microsoft of bad faith less than 48 hours after the request
for clarification is made does not appear to me to be a good faith
complaint.
I have no idea where this "48 hours" thing came from. Concerns have
been expressed about the MS Caller-ID license for months. At the
Interim meeting in May (that would be about 8 weeks ago) when the
merged SPF/Caller-ID proposal was made, the subject of the license was
brought up and Jim Lyon said that he would make sure that it would be
OK with Open Source mailers. It is my understanding that some lawyer
contacts were made in early June (6 weeks ago). I raised the issue
very directly on this mailing list two (2) weeks ago with my original
"Obstacles" post.
While there may be stuff happening behind the scenes that I'm not
privy to, there has been *ZERO* movement in public in the several
months that this has been a known issue.
OK, we have very little time left before the IETF-60. I think it is
very reasonable to assume that if nothing has happened in the last 8
weeks, that nothing will happen in the next 2 weeks and the Caller-ID
license is what we are going to get stuck with.
Now, maybe MicroSoft thought that the lack of posting on the subject
meant that there was a rough consensus that the license wasn't an
issue. Maybe the MicroSoft lawyers aren't willing to budge at all.
Maybe this is all part of the Illuminati and trilateral commission's
plot to take over the world. I don't know, and, to be quite honest, I
don't care.
The fact is that over the last week or so, no one has suggested that
it is acceptable to have a license for the Sender-ID IPR that would be
burdensome to GPLed or other open source MTAs/Spamfilters. Many
people have said that the RFC that this work group puts forward should
have no licensing requirements at all.
There is a clear rough consensus that the current Caller-ID license is
not acceptable.
I'm sorry if MicroSoft has wasted many weeks by not addressing the
issue. I'm sorry if we are now in a crunch period. That doesn't
change anything though.
If the Sender-ID licensing can't be resolved in a matter of days
(maybe a week), I think this working group MUST drop the PRA algorithm
and go forward with another proposal.
Or, is it the position of the co-chairs that we are not going to have
a working group last call this month?
-wayne