spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: URGENT: Community Position on SenderID

2004-11-23 12:28:13

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Greg Connor wrote:

SenderID is not "Microsoft's proposal", it is a joint effort between some SPF 
supporters and Microsoft.  SenderID includes BOTH PRA and SPF-classic.  We 
probably should make it clear that we think Microsoft's PRA is technically 
unsound and not SPF classic.

SenderID is not just about PRA and not just about MS.  If PRA turns out to be 
useless, SenderID still has a good chance of success.  There is more SPF in 
SenderID than there is CallerID :)

The thing is that greater majority of those involved in SPF did not want 
SPF to become part of "SenderID" and prefer to view SenderID as being a
new name for CallerID which is using SPF instead of XML records. 

In any case it is correct to say that SenderID is not technically bad if
any major part of it is bad. But we do want to make sure that people 
understand that we're talking about PRA and not SPF.
 
I agree with much of the pledge but I disagree with other parts.  For 
example, 
I don't agree with this:

"PRA" (Purported Responsible Address) as it is implemented within SenderID,
has many technical problems that make it unsuitable for use in the real
world.  Whilst this technical aspect was not the sole contributor to the
demise of the MARID working group it played a key role in acting as a major
stumbling block for many.

In my opinion, PRA hasn't seen enough testing to declare that it is or isn't 
suitable for real-world use.  Perhaps it will be found to be useful, perhaps 
not.  Whether or not PRA turns out to be useful, I certainly don't believe 
that PRA's technical problems played ANY role in MARID's demise, let alone a 
"key" role.

On FTC Summit Scott Bradner basicly said the main reason for closing MARID
was not patent/licensing problems but technical problems with proposals
that could not allow to reach consensus for them to become a standard.
I think he really did mean that MARID closed because the main proposal was
technically flowed and IETF was not willing to move such a thing forward.

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net