From: wayne Sent: October 1, 2004 2:37 PM
|With the MARID being disbanded, this lets Meng, the IETF
|(Ted and the maybe former co-chairs?) and MS (Harry, Jim,
|et al) avoid having to deal with working group directions
|and working group last calls. Now, they are free to do
|what they want and the only road block between SenderID
|with the PRA and RFC status is the IESG last call.
There is one crucial point you are forgetting. Mark is the
RFC Editor for the SPF drafts (being marid-protocol and
marid-mailfrom). The request to submit Drafts was put to
Mark.
To Mark's great credit he has done the right thing and
asked the SPF community for direction.
As an aside, even though we may have disagreed from time to
time, I personally want to go on record as thanking Mark
for all of the work he has done to date and the yeoman
service he has provided to the SPF community.
What is my request? Even though I believe the SPF community
needs to change direction, (as set out in other posts which
I have made), at this juncture it is appropriate that Mark
submit the appropriate document (s) to support publishing
v=spf1 records, allowing receiving MTAs to check the HELO
and MAILFROM scopes (commonly called SPF classic) for
approval by the IESG as an RFC Experimental Standard.
In turn, this will allow the technical directorate to
proceed with its focused review to ascertain whether SPF
contains any mechanisms that would cause deleterious effect
to the Internet based on wide scale deployment as an
experimental standard.
This review will require a certain commitment from Mark and
I am grateful he has agreed to commit himself to this
process.
At the same, once the drafts are submitted and the process
started, the SPF community can then decide how to proceed
forward.
As to PRA, in my view this is a technically flawed
solution. If individuals or corporations wish to support
PRA or continue to work with MS on PRA, that is their
choice.
But, as a whole, the SPF community should not support this
scope, particularly in light of the issues surrounding both
the patent claims and the draft patent license.
I appreciate this stance may upset MS, but it was not the
SPF community which changed the "water under the beam."
From my reading of the record, it was Mark's understanding
any draft patent license would be fully compatible with
open source licensing requirements.
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg02674.html
Even though many had misgivings, once it became apparent
that MS was not going to budge on the draft patent license,
any possibility of consensus fell apart.
Please also note the following statement made by Mark
during last call:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03994.html
And the views of Andy Newton, when an inquiry was put:
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg04037.html
Of course, the day before the WG was closed, we had the
press release impliedly claiming an IPR interest in SPF,
despite previous representations to the contrary.
Then after Marid's closure we had the subsequent Spiezle
letter which was supposed to clarify matters, but did not
and now the continuing failure of MS to clarify its
position, despite being called upon to do so.
In the circumstances, the SPF community has been left with
no choice but to withdraw its support for the PRA scope.
Should MS clarify its position, the matter can be revisited
at that time.
John
John Glube
Toronto, Canada
For The Record, Will Microsoft Own Email?
http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/wme.html
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.767 / Virus Database: 514 - Release Date: 21/09/2004