Harry,
I appreciate the awkward position MS finds itself in.
The Sender-ID protocol remains a work in progress.
Therefore, since it is unclear whether MS will have IPR to
contribute or not at the end of the day, you suggest the WG
needs to wait until the product is finished before MS makes
a formal claim, if any.
However, unfortunately, this kind of leaves the WG in the
position of "Does she love me or does she love me not? That
is the question."
Why do I say this? It goes back to the license form which
comes with the IPR.
It seems the license form put forward by MS is an anathema
to many in the WG.
See as an example the post made by Phillip on 26.07.08, when
he wrote:
"Microsoft has been told that they need to adjust the
license terms if the technology is to stay in. The chairs
have given a specific date for providing the statement from
the lawyers. Ergo there is nothing to be done until either
we hear from the lawyers or the deadline expires. There
seems to already be consensus that the license terms are not
acceptable as is."
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg02843.html
In fairness, the guidance we had this morning was:
"The WG can reasonably presume MS is claiming a defensive
patent on Sender-ID and will ask for a license in the form
found at Microsoft's site."
(I am summarizing.)
The chair also indicated a discussion of the license would
remain on the agenda.
I suggest the questions now before the WG are:
* Since MS did not file anything further by August 2, 2004
and as it is reasonable to make the presumption as suggested
by the chair there is an IPR claim, with no proposal for a
revised license from MS, should the WG simply reject
Sender-ID?
(I reference Phillip's post, since he states the position
was put to MS, "play now or forget it," with the date for
playing being August 2, 2004. I acknowledge Phillip is one
individual and so the issue remains open.)
* MS now says "we don't know whether we will have any IPR to
contribute until we know the final form of Sender-ID.
Therefore, let's proceed with further work on Sender-ID and
when we see the final form, MS can file any appropriate IPR
with the license request."
From what I have read, subject to the position put by
Phillip being formally adopted by the WG, I don't see
Sender-ID proponents agreeing to drop the PRA algorithm,
although it could be removed from Sender-ID as per Carl's
suggestion and put into a separate draft.
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg02905.html
Presumably this decision can be made at the WG meeting in
the morning. If it is accepted, then MS can tell the WG, we
no longer have an IPR claim viz Sender-ID and Sender-ID nee
SPF can move forward.
If it is decided to not remove the PRA algorithm from
Sender-ID, then MS knows the position and can make its IPR
claim. In turn, the WG can make its response and all of this
can happen at the meeting.
Besides, is it appropriate to go through the exercise of
doing all the work and then finding out, yes MS is claiming
IPR and a license and the WG then responding "forget it as
the license is unacceptable."
In other words, unless the PRA algorithm is moved to its own
draft protocol, the WG and MS remain confronted with the
issue as noted above by Phillip, either "play now or forget
it" with the deadline for playing now originally having been
August 2, 2004.
Do not misunderstand me. I am not trying to make life
difficult.
But, I suggest MS put its cards on the table by not filing
anything further on August 2, 2004.
Before proceeding further down the Sender-ID road, I suggest
the WG needs to respond.
The existing uncertainty affects decision making by those
who are considering sender authentication.
As an example, I can't make a recommendation to a group of
business owners who are primarily online newsletter
publishers along with a number of 3rd party permission based
email service providers, sellers of web hosting and the like
and then find out "oh gee sorry, Sender-ID and Submitter are
now off the table. Forget SPF as the sender standard, the
protocol is CSV. The time and expense you went through, it’s
a waste."
In the meantime, time is marching on. Some receivers have
started doing SPF checks. Other receivers have suggested
they will be starting to make checks in the early fall. Open
source filters are starting to include SPF checks.
Many business people want to get moving, but ... with this
cloud hanging over the situation, it makes it very difficult
to make a prudent business decision.
The solution? The WG can say to MS:
* "Thanks but no thanks," or,
* Move the PRA to its own draft (so side stepping the
license issue and the related concerns), let Sender-ID nee
SPF proceed as the tracking standard without any IPR claim
from MS and if folks want to be really brave otherwise
incorporate the following proposal:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03007.html
Trusting these suggestions help to resolve the situation and
move the issue forward.
John
John Glube
Toronto, Canada
The FTC Calls For Sender Authentication
http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/dne.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Harry Katz [mailto:hkatz(_at_)exchange(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com]
Sent: August 3, 2004 7:54 PM
To: Andrew Newton; John Glube
Cc: Ted Hardie; Mark Lentczner; IETF MARID WG
Subject: RE: IPR Disclosure for Sender-ID
As you know, Sender ID is the result of a merger of various
elements of SPF and Microsoft's Caller ID for E-mail proposal.
Microsoft has filed the IPR disclosure for Caller ID, and we will
file a disclosure as soon as we reasonably can - very shortly -
for that portion of Sender ID where Microsoft still has IPR to
contribute, namely draft-ietf-marid-core-02.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.729 / Virus Database: 484 - Release Date: 27/07/2004