ietf-mxcomp
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: clarification on consensus call for compromise

2004-09-09 23:29:11

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).

I believe there has been a lot more interest in not using the patented
approach and replacing it with an unencumbered technique.  In addition,
I believe most of the statements of support have been for Sender ID
itself, not specifically for leaving PRA in as an option.  A good number
of the statements of support for Sender ID also suggested removing PRA,
finding a way to adopt Sender ID without PRA, etc.

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:

If the chairs feel it is necessary to actively advocate patented
material when we have barely explored unencumbered alternatives, barely
consider interoperability, and fix the specification in stone before it
is ready -- all in order to meet our time goals, perhaps we should
request changes to the charter.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/