From the URL:
3) On the issue of ignoring patent claims, the working group has
at least rough consensus that the patent claims should not be
ignored. Additionally, there is at least rough consensus that the
participants of the working group cannot accurately describe the
specific claims of the patent application. This stems from the
fact that the patent application is not publicly available. Given
this, it is the opinion of the co-chairs that MARID should not
undertake work on alternate algorithms reasonably thought to be
covered by the patent application. We do feel that future changes
regarding the patent claim or its associated license could
significantly change the consensus of the working group, and at
such a time it would be appropriate to consider new work of this type.
Pending clarification I conclude from this that the standard is
not to be encumbered. If I am wrong then my view of the efficacy
of the IETF process in general and MARID in specific will undergo
a radical change.
So if I am correct what can Microsoft do now? In my opinon they
must choose to relax the restrictions in their license if they
want to see the PRA included in the standard. If they don't it's
clear that the MARID working group will *not* be considering
algorithms which might reasonably be considered as *covered* by
the patent application. Right now, *today even* there is one bit
of proven technology which meets some of the existing SPEC and has
been declared "not covered" by Microsoft. That one little bit is
called *SPF <http://spf.pobox.com>*.
I think this interpretation depends upon what MARID considers "alternate
algorithms". If PRA is included in this description, then I agree that
their opinion is that PRA should not be included unless it can be proven
to be outside the scope of the patent application (which I believe there
is reason to believe is not the case). The verbage of that sentence
though is less than clear (at least to me), and it could also be taken
to say that no alternatives _to_ PRA (as opposed to no alternatives
_such as_ PRA) should be considered.
I truly hope it is the former and that there is a chance to have this
issue put to (some degree) of rest.
Doug