RE: Fwd: Sender-ID and free software

Phillip,

The problem is not MARID or which other forum the standard is developed. 
What we want is standard that everybody can implement and that is what is 
being challenged here because Microsoft did not provide licensing on
terms that everyone can accept. 

At the same time, Microsoft has not provided even an answer on which part
of the spec they have patent on, nor is it clear if patent they have can 
even apply as PRA algorithm has already been changed during MARID 
discussion and even before that, the algorithm proposed was a fairly 
obvious one and its not totally clear if you can patent thing like that 
(can you really patent an idea that person who send you email can be 
identifed by either From or Sender header?).

And of course, that we have a tight schedule and that slow-working lawyers
in one of the biggest companies (the bigger organization, the bigger is a 
bureaucracy) have to be involved does not help...

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

> Chuck,
>
>       The MARID group has put Microsoft on notice that it has to come up
> with an acceptable license by a certain date if the Sender-ID technology is
> to remain in the spec.
>
>       We have specified the terms that are at issue. Harry is talking to
> the Microsoft lawyers to obtain an acceptable set of license terms.
>
>       Exactly what is it that you are objecting to here? That it takes the
> Microsoft lawyers more than 5 days to respond to request for more
> advantageous terms on a license that is already royalty free?
>
>       Exactly what do you expect to achieve by campaigning on the issue
> now? If you wanted an earlier resolution of the problem you should have
> raised it earlier. All this flame fest is going to do is to convince
> Microsoft and the other vendors that it is impossible to have a rational
> discussion in an IETF working group.
>
>       The accusations of bad faith being lobbed arround do nothing to
> help. All it does is to provide ammunition for some Microsoft executive to
> say, 'what is the point of us being reasonable here, it is clear that they
> have no intention of being reasonable themselves?'. 
>
>       The IETF is in a very weak situation these days. They have sunk from
> being the most influential Internet standards body to an also-ran. The
> process is much too slow, the discussions are tedious, unprofessional and
> chaotic and by the time an RFC is issued it is usually far too late to help
> the proposal gain traction in the marketplace. The process does not result
> in major improvements in the specifications that would justify these
> disadvantages, often the spec that comes out of the WG is much worse than
> the one that went in.
>
>       It is therefore a bad idea to try to use the IETF as leverage to
> achieve other political ends, there is just no leverage there. AS I pointed
> out to Meng at the start of the MARID process the only reason that MARID is
> going to succeed is because everyone understands that if Microsoft and Meng
> walk out and come to an agreement in another forum its all over.
>
>
>               Phill
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
> > [mailto:owner-spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com]On Behalf Of 
> > Chuck Mead
> > Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 11:56 AM
> > To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
> > Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Fwd: Sender-ID and free software
> >
> >
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Meng Weng Wong wrote:
> > | On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 09:58:31PM +0200, Michel Bouissou wrote:
> > | |
> > | | Let me forward here this message that I just got from R.M.S., and
> > that he sent
> > | | as well to the IETF MARID WG <ietf-mxcomp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org> 
> > Mailing-List.
> > | |
> > |
> > | eweek has coverage:
> > |
> > |   http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1627466,00.asp
> >
> > And now Phill has trounced him. Will the apologists never learn?
> >
> >
> > - --
> > csm(_at_)moongroup(_dot_)com, head geek
> > http://moongroup.com & http://anironline.com
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> >
> > iD8DBQFBA9giv6Gjsf2pQ0oRAgr+AJkBnttOnHUAnzv6EAnvDxC1/QMLYQCdFRCf
> > 2uPqVOhfAEMYsSWyealOanU=
> > =AWt9
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> > -------
> > Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
> > Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
> > Send us money!  http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
> > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily 
> > deactivate your subscription, 
> > please go to 
> > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
> -------
> Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
> Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
> Send us money!  http://spf.pobox.com/donations.html
> To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your 
> subscription, 
> please go to 
> http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net