In <6F85C4FB-FC9A-11D8-BA2B-000A95AC5778(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com> "Anne P.
Mitchell, Esq." <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com> writes:
This may be naive in terms of the workings of the group, and
protocol...but rather than abandon Sender I.D., why not contact MS and
explain to them the concerns, and let them clarify? [...]
Yes, I said I didn't understand why we were looking at this *given the
problems* when we had SPF which had no such problems, but now it's not
clear to me whether they have been given an opportunity to rectify
these problems; have they?
Yes, Microsoft has been given plenty of notice about the problems with
their license and given many opportunities to address the issues.
Lawyers from the FSF and OSI have been working with MS lawyers for
*months*.
The hard deadline of Aug 23 given by the co-chairs for any revised IPR
license was actually the *second* deadline given to MS. IPR issues
were discussed at the interim meeting this spring and at the IETF-60
session. This is not a case of MS being ambushed by people who just
suddenly decided to raise concerns about the license. Rather, this is
a case where MS long considered the issue and has drawn a line in the
sand and said "if you want SenderID, you must accept our license
terms. That is our final offer."
So, here were are, almost to the end of the Last Call on these
Internet-Drafts for potential RFCs. We are trying to determine if the
benefits of using the patent encumbered PRA algorithm is enough better
than the alternatives to outweigh the costs.
In order to advance the marid-pra and marid-core I-Ds, there needs to
be a rough consensus from this working group that they should
advance. From what I can see, there is no consensus that they should
advance, if anything, there is a rough consensus that they should not
advance. Of course, it is all up to the opinions of the co-chairs as
to whether there is a rough consensus. As Phillip Hallam-Baker can
tell you, there are some "wonderful" stories about co-chairs of IETF
working groups deciding on the issue of rough consensuses.
-wayne