Subject: RE: Obstacles between us and the finish line

From: "Harry Katz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 12:04:07 -0700

On Wednesday, July 14, 2004 10:54 AM, Hector Santos wrote:

> I second your concerns.  This is completely disturbing.  Not 
> only do I think the proposals are faulty, will incur a high 
> degree of compatibility issues, will translates to a high 
> revamping and resign cost,  I now have to worry about 
> fighting what would be prior art issues anyway?
> 
> No, there is got to be a better answer to all this.  This is 
> fast becoming a "MICROSOFT" only solution and Bill Gates 
> recent quote saying using security as a "Strategic 
> Competitive Advantage" might come back to bite him in the 
> anti-trust area.
> 

First, please read Ted Hardie's posting about our IP filing with respect
to the original Caller ID specification from which Sender ID is derived.

Second, to suggest that this is becoming a Microsoft only solution is
outrageous, abusrd and without any basis in fact!    

In reality we have been working in good faith within this group to
arrive at an Internet standard that the whole industry can support with
the objective of addressing a problem that we are all concerned about.
The current drafts, and the revisions we are now working on following
last week's design review, are dramatically different from our original
Caller ID proposal -- a fact that reflects our willingness to compromise
with others in order to arrive at a common solution.  

If you cannot restrain yourself from gratuitous Microsoft-bashing, I
strongly suggest that you 

A) Do it somewhere else so you won't be disturbing people who are trying
to accomnplish meaningful work, and

B) Get your facts right.

---

From: Chuck Mead <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:41:42 -0400

Bitten by the Reply-to! I sent this directly to Harry instead of the
list which was my intent.

Harry Katz wrote:
| On Wednesday, July 14, 2004 10:54 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
|
|
|>I second your concerns.  This is completely disturbing.  Not
|>only do I think the proposals are faulty, will incur a high
|>degree of compatibility issues, will translates to a high
|>revamping and resign cost,  I now have to worry about
|>fighting what would be prior art issues anyway?
|>
|>No, there is got to be a better answer to all this.  This is
|>fast becoming a "MICROSOFT" only solution and Bill Gates
|>recent quote saying using security as a "Strategic
|>Competitive Advantage" might come back to bite him in the
|>anti-trust area.
|>
|
|
| First, please read Ted Hardie's posting about our IP filing with respect
| to the original Caller ID specification from which Sender ID is derived.

Sender ID is derived only from Caller-ID? Gee... there's a concept...
Where did SPF come from then?

| Second, to suggest that this is becoming a Microsoft only solution is
| outrageous, abusrd and without any basis in fact!

For my part I don't claim that... I worry about it but I'm not making
the claim. The issue we've been talking about though is that the
Caller-ID spec and it's attendant RAND license is being mis-applied to
what is, essentially, SPF Classic. THAT is what we're talking about and
I don't think any amount of crying that we're wasting *YOUR* time and
effort worrying about it is going to shut those of us who care about it
as an issue *UP*!

| In reality we have been working in good faith within this group to
| arrive at an Internet standard that the whole industry can support with
| the objective of addressing a problem that we are all concerned about.
| The current drafts, and the revisions we are now working on following
| last week's design review, are dramatically different from our original
| Caller ID proposal -- a fact that reflects our willingness to compromise
| with others in order to arrive at a common solution.

'zactly... thus we need to change the point of reference for the license
as we are *NOT* talking about Caller-ID anymore. We are talking about
SPF as far as I can see and that's not under RAND or anything else so
far as licensing is concerned. Is it?

I suspect that if someone would simply clarify it we'd likely be
satisfied as I strongly believe what we've been discussing is *NOT*
Called-ID which, consequently, kicks the CID RAND restriction to the
curb doesn't it?

<snippage>

---

From: wayne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:44:48 -0500

(Burning my third (and last) post for the day...)

In <[email-masked]> Chuck Mead <[email-masked]> writes:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>

Sender-ID is a merger of SPf and Caller-ID, therefore Sender-ID is
dirived from both.  It also has news stuff, like the SUBMITTER ESMTP
idea, thrown in.

> For my part I don't claim that...

For my part I don't claim that either.  I am concerned that some
important MTAs/Spamfilters may be locked out of implementing
Sender-ID.

> satisfied ....

Yes, I think this is the point...

> ... as I strongly believe what we've been discussing is *NOT*

... but, as I mention above, the Caller-ID RAND/Z license still
applies to Sender-ID.

-wayne