----- Original Message -----
From: "william(at)elan.net" <william(_at_)elan(_dot_)net>
To: <spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] Agenda item: SenderID Position Statement
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004, Greg Connor wrote:
I appreciate your taking the time to discuss and gather input.
The same and also I would like to note that many of us are happy to have
on our side people like you and Meng who are very diplomatic in your
positions and statements, such skills are important and often results in
greater cooperation among larger audience. But unfortunetly diplomacy
does not always work is not necessarily the right step when dealing with
Micorsoft and when we want to produce reliable technology.
In this regard I'd also like to remind that we did try to work with
Microsoft
before under supervision of IETF (i.e. MARID WG). Microsoft did not
address
any of the technical issues with SenderID that had been brought up nor
did it change the license eventhough we gave them several opportunities
(they missed several deadlines and we were willing to let it all go), in
the end IETF decided that because of Microsoft CallerID algorithm (with
its corresponding technical problems) and Microsoft unwillingness to
compromise on the license, that it would not be possible for MARID
to get its job done and produce standard that would have support of
the internet community.
My preference would be to ask the council to vote down the position
statement as written, and work on a much shorter, concise statement.
I do not believe this statement is overly long, it does somewhat mixes
political and technical reasons why SPF Community does not like Sender ID
in its current form, but it would not be appropriate to change it now
that it has so many people who have signed under it, nor would better
separation of political and technical reasons really change the issues
expressed by that document.
I would also remind that SPF Council (as it was called for based on
the results of my poll) should not really be making up policy on its own,
rather it should be acting is similar way to chairs in IETF WG and
ratifying positions that have consensus of the community and in this
case the consensus seems to exist as shown by large number of people
in SPF Community that supported this statement.
Hang on a minute - 100+ signatures is nothing compared to the 4,900 people
who are on these mail-lists and *didn't* sign it. It's too late now to
say - "Visit the page and say Yes *or* No", so we'll never know how
"ratified" that document *really* is. As you will gather - I don't like it
one bit, so I didn't sign it. Can you tell me how may others looked at it
and walked away?
Slainte,
JohnP.
johnp(_at_)idimo(_dot_)com
ICQ 313355492