In <01F77AC2-028D-11D9-BE4C-000A95B3BA44(_at_)hxr(_dot_)us> Andrew Newton
<andy(_at_)hxr(_dot_)us> writes:
In order to ensure that there are scopes for which there is no known
IPR encumbrance, the co-chairs propose a new document describing
a mail_from scope. The PRA scope would also be one of the scopes
initially
described, as there is clearly sufficient interest in checking pra to
allow it to move forward as one among several scopes (interest being
judged both on public statements and deployed code). An IANA registry
for additional scopes created by Standards Track RFCs would be created.
Andy, I just don't understand this. While there is clearly sufficient
interest in using the PRA by some people, there are also many who
object to such a patent encumbered RFC advancing. I can't see how you
think you will get consensus for the PRA advancing later. If you
intend to ignore the objections, why don't you just advance it now?
Since before this working group was founded, there was clearly
sufficient interest in using the MAIL FROM in the form of
SPF-classic. If "sufficient interest" is an adequate reason for
pushing an RFC, why was SPF-classic put on the back burner?
This is not a call for alternate suggestions, nor is it a consensus call
on the documents which have not yet been produced. It is the
chairs' work plan for meeting this chartered goal of this working
group:
Ok, let me understand this. We can't put forth alternatives to the
PRA, but you can pull a incompatible version of SPF-classic out of
your hat?
The case of patent encumbered crypto has been mentioned several
times. As has been repeatedly pointed out, RFCs that allow patent
encumbered crypto almost(?) always include options for unencumbered
crypto that can be used in the same problem space.
I vehemently object to advancing marid-pra unless there is at least
one unencumbered proposal that covers the 2822.From: identity.
(marid-pra becoming unencumbered is obviously one way of erasing my
objection.)
-wayne