Couple concise thoughts if I may:
I think I'd rather have someone say what their intent is, rather
than hammering away and not disclosing their rationale/motivation. That
being said Of course I DON'T want to see those posts either, you just
haven't considered the parallel to it.......
If you're going to take this tack then people shouldn't mention
their open source licenses and how microsoft's IPR is incompatible, because
that is just the analogue. Of course in this arena championing open source
is much more "Politically Correct" if you will, and this bias slips into a
LOT of peoples posts. I've seen QUITE a few posts saying "we can't do this
because MS IPR etc etc etc".
Personally I don't think anything but technical issues should be
discussed. IF IPR ends up being an issue than this will NEVER become an
official standard as wide depolyment is requisite for that. If it doesn't
GREAT!
Probably the best reason I can think of to limit this to technical
discussion is that listening to lawyers is a waste of our time (no offense
legal folk... Err....) , when this IS in fact a technical discussion. If
lawyers actually agreed on things then we'd not have judges or a legal
system. We should relish the fact that we operate in an area in which
objective points can be raised, evaluated and implemented.
So in summary:
-No "This is good for our business"
-No "this doesn't fit into our licensing scheme"
-No "Microsoft is the devil"
-No "Open source is the wave of the future"
Let's talk about the issue we are here for, and stop treating this
like it's 5th grade elections as we try to champion our personal cause.
WHAT is going to solve the issue. HOW and WHY or WHY NOT.
Just my PERSONAL opinion on what we should be discussing. I hope I didn't
reveal any inclinations in supporting any of the periperhal issues, and if I
did it was unintentional. Let's get down to business!
-Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]
On Behalf Of Mark C. Langston
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 9:56 AM
To: ietf-mxcomp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: In support of Sender ID
Could we perhaps dispense with the corporate (particularly executive)
endorsement posts for Sender-ID? I thought people in the IETF represented
themselves. The few times I've seen products mentioned, it was by the
/developers/ of said products.
--
Mark C. Langston GOSSiP Project Sr. Unix SysAdmin
mark(_at_)bitshift(_dot_)org http://sufficiently-advanced.net
mark(_at_)seti(_dot_)org
Systems & Network Admin Distributed SETI Institute
http://bitshift.org E-mail Reputation http://www.seti.org