Frank
The drafts Wayne is referencing were discussed on the SPF
discuss list in June and July.
These drafts did not make it to the IETF table. Instead we
had revised SPF, Sender-ID and Submitter.
With the realization we continued to have an IPR and
licensing issue with the existing Sender-ID draft, Wayne
suggested a substitution.
Last night I raised the Unified theory as a work around to
many of these problems.
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03007.html
This morning, Andy kindly informed the list the chairs had
decided to solicit reviews of Sender-ID within the time
frame of the WG schedule.
The Agenda calls for discussion of the IPR issue and the
PRA algorithm this afternoon.
I made a further post early this morning concerning these
issues, following up on Harry's comments concerning
Microsoft's difficulties filing an IPR.
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03010.html
In this post I referenced dealing with the issues raised at
the meeting in the morning. This was an error on my part.
If the Unified Theory is to be the work around, subject to
guidance from the WG chairs, it seems it has to come
forward during the review of the IPR and PRA algorithm in
the afternoon.
In turn this would allow the chairs to solicit reviews
within the WG's time frame of at least the 'Sender-ID'
portion.
This in turn would facilitate finalizing the needed drafts
so the WG can meet its time lines.
Also, one other point. Should people decide to proceed in
this direction, instead of calling it Unified Marid or
Unified SPF why not call it Unified Sender-ID?
I apologize if these matters have already been discussed at
the meeting and I am raising something which is not
necessary.
John
cc. Andy, Meng, Mark, Dave, Harry and Jim
John Glube
Toronto, Canada
---
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