In <C38E62C0-D50F-11D8-896F-000393A56BB6(_at_)glyphic(_dot_)com> Mark Lentczner
<markl(_at_)glyphic(_dot_)com> writes:
We believe that the MS claims in the area only cover the PRA algorithm
(though they haven't made that explicitly clear). It is our belief
that MS has been operating in good faith and intends to allow open
source development. Meng has had some very prominent open source
lawyers look at the language and they are not all that concerned on
first look. There will be some heavy legal review in the coming week.
I'm sure that if MS and the open source community don't see eye to eye
after that, then the IETF working group will move on (perhaps
replacing the PRA check with SPF's original MAIL FROM check --
meanwhile the protocol document doesn't have to change.)
While I also believe that MS is operating in good faith, I think it is
very important to point out that if you have any problems with the
current SenderID licensing, you MUST say so on the MARID mailing list,
or your opinions/concerns will not count.
The IETF runs by rough consensus. If there is only one or two people
expressing concern on the MARID mailing list, then the co-chairs will
assume that there is a rough consensus that there isn't a problem with
the SenderID license.
You do not have to stamp your feet, call people names, or demand no
progress at all on SenderID, but you *do* have to make your position
known.
Time is running out, there will be a freeze on changes to the drafts
next Monday and if the co-chairs feel things are ready, they may issue
a "last call" for the working group. You need to make your voices
know this week.
The same goes for any other issues you have with the current SenderID
system. If you don't say anything, you are effectively voting for the
current state of affairs. If you want to see SPF-classic (the MAIL
FROM checking) done in addition to SenderID, you need to say so. If
you think any part of the spec is wrong, discussing it here is ok, but
it is not as critical as discussing it on the MARID list.
-wayne