[wayne]
This makes no sense.
There is *zero* reason to believe that if MS wins IETF approval of the
current license that they will change later on. MS has been under a
lot of preasure for months and they really have barely budged on the
critical issues even when it is clear they risk getting approval.
...or a nonincumbered algorithm with similar
effectiveness to
PRA can be found and substitiuted.
What you are saying here is that we wouldn't be accepting SenderID!
So, if you are willing to accept something other than SenderID, why
don't you demand a better license *before* it gets approved?
My apologies... my post *was* rather unclear.
My position is that the MS license is "free and open enough" for my
purposes, and those of many others.
My position also assumes that there *can* be changes to these drafts
before final ratification, including finding an alternative to the PRA
document if it is ultimately deemed necessary. If that is not the case,
please let me know; I thought nothing was "final" until ratification.
My position is that SenderID will be useful in its current form for a
lot of people, including me, my organization, and my clients.
Basically, I do not want to see SenderID and all the work that has been
done discarded. I also don't want to lose the MS partnership in this
process, and therefore lose all the mailboxes and MTAs to which MS can
easily deploy an authentication standard. Personally, I'd rather go
forward with the IP issues than see SenderID killed now.
--
Ryan