Jonathan Gardner wrote:
Therefore, I move that Sender ID be removed from the MARID recommendations
because it can never be a standard in the open source community due to its
licensing terms and the uncertainty of pending patent claims. In its place,
we should recommend SPF version 1, or SPF "classic", as currently adopted
and implemented by over 70,000 recorded domains.
A few comments. First of all, we do not know whether the IPR claims
extend to SPF classic or not. While the IPR disclosure does not mention
the SPF draft, I have contacted Microsoft's legal department several
times in the past 9 months to obtain a clear answer as to whether all of
the drafts produced in the ASRG as input to MARID including RMX, SPF and
others, are in fact covered or not covered. To date, I have not received
an answer, and we have not heard directly from the legal department.
However, it does happen often that IPR claims are submitted even after
the standard is published as mentioned in RFC 3669, so SPF classic might
not be any better than Sender-ID. Here is a copy of the email I sent and
a reply I received:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Caller ID license
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 15:58:00 -0800
From: Dawna Hoerle (LCA)
To: Yakov Shafranovich
CC: Microsoft Standards Inquiries <stdsreq(_at_)microsoft(_dot_)com>
Thank you for your inquiry. I will route your request to the appropriate
persons, who will respond to you as quickly as possible.
Dawna
-----Original Message-----
From: Yakov Shafranovich
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 2:27 PM
To: Microsoft Standards Inquiries
Subject: Caller ID license
I co-chair the Anti-Spam Research Group (ASRG) of the IRTF
(www.irtf.org/asrg/). My question is regarding the Caller ID proposal
that Microsoft has recently published (www.microsoft.com/spam/). I want
to know whether you are going to be claiming similar IP claims on the
following IETF drafts:
MTAMARK - draft-stumpf-dns-mtamark-01.txt
DRIP - draft-brand-drip-02.txt
RMX - draft-danisch-dns-rr-smtp-03.txt
DMP - draft-fecyk-dmp-01.txt
SPF - draft-mengwong-spf-00.txt
FSV - draft-levine-fsv-00.txt
Yakov
Second point - at this time Microsoft has no patent or any other IP
relevant to this and is not forcing anyone to take out a license.
Therefore, no license is required as of today. We are talking about a
*possible* patent that *may be* approved in the future. As Microsoft
states in their FAQ:
Q4: When do you need to execute a license with Microsoft?
A: At this time Microsoft is only aware of pending patent application claims
that cover its
submission of the Sender ID specification. Because Microsoft is not aware of
any issued patent
claims, Microsoft does not require any one to sign a license with Microsoft to
implement the
Sender ID specification or any part of it that is incorporated into IETF
working drafts.
Third point - as others and I posted before, there is serious doubt as
to whether this patent is actually valid or enforceble in light of
possible prior art. As of today, this technology is not encumbered by
any patents and may stay that away if the patent application is not
approved. Additionally, it is feasible that at least some of the claims
if not all are deriving from the discussions in the ASRG and other
groups, and therefore may be complete frivilous. The IDN WG faced that
situation before as described in RFC 3669 and chose to ignore the claims.
Yakov