In
<C6DDA43B91BFDA49AA2F1E473732113E010BEC00(_at_)mou1wnexm05(_dot_)vcorp(_dot_)ad(_dot_)vrsn(_dot_)com>
"Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> writes:
* I believe it is fundamental that open standards which are
subject to patents and/or patent claims must be subject to
actual or draft patent licenses which are compatible with
open source licensing standards as set out in the Open
Standards Alliance model to ensure the continued vibrancy
of the Internet.
Well maybe what you learn from all of this is that maybe you
did not choose the best way to achieve your goal.
I dunno about John Glube, but I for one am *much* happier to have no
de-jure standard than a standard that most of the MTAs on the internet
can't (effectively) use. This is especially true when there is a
de-facto standard that not only is compatible with most MTAs, but
implmentations have been made available for the vast majority of MTAs.
It was your idea to play chicken with this issue. Don't complain
about the all too predictable result.
Again, I can't speak for John Glube, but I don't think he, or anyone
else who supported F/OSS MTAs, was playing chicken. MS was told many
times that objections would be raised if their license was not
compatible with F/OSS MTAs. At the interim meeting, Jim assured us
that it was. (Or, would be, as the license had not been released at
that time.)
While I'm disappointed that Harry and Jim were not able to get the MS
lawyers to do the right thing, and I'm disappointed that Ted Hardie
shut down the working group, I think that all people who really want
to see an end to email forgery have won this current battle. If the
SenderID I-Ds had advanced, they would have just created huge market
confusion with the massive deployment problems that the license
creates.
The war, of course, is not over. The IETF (Ted, and maybe the former
co-chairs?), Meng, and MS (Harry, Jim, Bob, et al) appear to have
learned nothing from what has happened. They have done an end-run
around the working group last call by closing down the working group,
but they are still pushing ahead with the PRA under the current
license. Apparently, they think that when the "individual" I-Ds are
submitted to the IESG and there is an IETF-wide last-call, things will
go better. I don't see it.
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and
expecting different results. Under this definition, Ted, Meng, Harry,
Jim, et al, are acting quite insane.
I see four choices:
1) Forget about getting a de-jure standard.
2) Drop the PRA.
3) Change the PRA license to be compatible with F/OSS MTAs.
4) Find one or more widely accepted alternative to the PRA that covers
the 2822.From: identity so that people can reasonably choose
between the PRA and the alternatives.
Ted, Meng, Harry, Jim et al: PLEASE! Wake up and smell the coffee!
We need a anti-forgery system that protects the 2822.From: identity,
we don't need another two-week blowup when the IESG last-call happens.
-wayne