From: Meng Weng Wong Sent: October 13, 2004 7:49 PM
|On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 05:13:30PM -0400, John Glube wrote:
|| * I appreciate some will argue there are lots of benefits
|| of simply moving ahead with Microsoft. I appreciate this
|| position, however if that were the case, mail from and pra
|| would have made it through last call without MARID being
|| shut down, with mailfrom and pra checking now on the
|| standards track. However, that is not the case. Instead
|| what happened is the whole process "blew up," over an
|| attempt by Microsoft to simply take over the whole thing.
|I'll send out a more detailed summary of my recent
|discussions with MS when I get the time, but for now I
|should raise the point that the latest versions of the
|"core" drafts I saw from MS now treat both mail-from and
|PRA on an equal footing, saying that receivers can check
|either. So I think that if MARID had gone on for another
|week, the latest revision of Sender ID might be much more
|acceptable to the group.
|
|I don't know if this point has been brought up before, but
|it changes things significantly.
Meng, with the greatest of respect, the fact the latest
core drafts which you have seen treat both mail-from and
PRA checking as equal does not change a thing.
This fact was presumed during the discussion between the
period from September 14 to September 21, 2004.
But perhaps more to the point:
* The IESG in shutting down MARID found there was a lack of
consensus on the best way to proceed and for this reason
decided to invite the various RFC editors to submit
internet drafts for consideration as RFC experimental
standards.
* In response to questions put to you by Wayne after MARID
was shut down you expressed the view the reason MARID was
shut down was to allow Microsoft to do an "end run" around
last call. There would have been no need to do an end run
around "last call" if the view was that a consensus could
have been reached on moving ahead with mail from and pra
checking, while pra checking was subject to an IPR claim
and a draft patent license which was not acceptable to the
open source community.
* My own view is somewhat different. The compromise of
moving ahead with mail from and pra checking was already on
shaky ground. With the press statement on 21.09.04,
indicating Microsoft may have any IPR claim against SPF,
which directly contradicted the clear representations
previously made to the MARID list on the point, this was
the tipping point, leaving the IESG with no choice but to
shut down MARID.
Either way, it really does not matter. The simple fact is
the IESG found there was no consensus and that no consensus
could be reached.
It is my considered opinion that your desire to see what
you perceive as the best technical solution being one
record allowing for multiple scopes is being taken
advantage of by some very astute people on the other side
of the fence.
In June I agreed with you. In August, I persisted in
pushing for mail from to be considered along with pra
checking. However, in September after seeing the draft
patent license and being shaken awake by Anne Mitchell's
messages to the MARID list, I realized this was a bus I
could no longer ride.
In essence, to proceed forward with both scopes, one has to
ignore the risk that Microsoft may make an IPR claim
against SPF, (unlikely as that may seem to some), but much
more importantly and to the point, one has to set aside the
whole debate about the lack of compatibility of the draft
patent license with the requirements of the open source
community. In doing so, one is debasing the wishes and
wants of the open source community, to date the strongest
supporters of SPF.
Besides, this stance will not cause the matter to go away.
We all know that if a proposal for PRA checking comes
forward for last call from the IESG, even if it is "gift
wrapped" with mail from checking and only for consideration
as an RFC Experimental Standard, there is going to be
"blood all over the floor" as long as Microsoft persists
with its position on the draft patent license.
So why persist in a flawed plan. It makes no sense. Rather
set up a situation which forces Microsoft to brave the cold
winds alone, without any comfort from you or others within
the open source community. This will compel the folks at
Redmond and their allies to face the political reality
square on and either they can go down with the ship, or
change their approach (as happened in MARID). My bet? At
day's end, Microsoft will blink. And should Microsoft not
blink, then PRA checking as proposed by Microsoft dies a
still born child.
The sad part? By persisting in your stance, you add fuel to
the fire that you "are in league" with Microsoft. (This is
nothing new, I have raised this concern before.) This is a
highly charged political situation. One can attempt to
shade the matter, but in politics, "perception is reality"
and in this case, by attempting to straddle the fence, you
will be perceived as being for the draft patent license, so
end up being "painted." In the meantime, at day's end, when
your welcome is worn out, Microsoft will cast you adrift
while their ship of state sails forward.
John
John Glube
Toronto, Canada
The FTC Calls For Sender Authentication
http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/dne.html
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.776 / Virus Database: 523 - Release Date: 12/10/2004