Subject: RE: Microsoft Statement regarding Sender I.D. Update and Plans (f orwarded by request)

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 08:38:21 -0700

> * I believe it is fundamental that open standards which are
> subject to patents and/or patent claims must be subject to
> actual or draft patent licenses which are compatible with
> open source licensing standards as set out in the Open
> Standards Alliance model to ensure the continued vibrancy
> of the Internet.

Well maybe what you learn from all of this is that maybe you
did not choose the best way to achieve your goal.

It was your idea to play chicken with this issue. Don't complain
about the all too predictable result.

---

From: Matt Sergeant <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 17:54:17 +0100

> about the all too predictable result.

Played chicken? Can you be any more insulting?

Some of us travelled 6000 miles for a one day event to try and persuade 
Microsoft to do the right thing. This wasn't playing chicken. Some of 
us worked really bloody hard at this only for MS to stand their ground 
and waste all our efforts.

Matt.

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

---

From: wayne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:03:50 -0500

> did not choose the best way to achieve your goal.

I dunno about John Glube, but I for one am *much* happier to have no
de-jure standard than a standard that most of the MTAs on the internet
can't (effectively) use.  This is especially true when there is a
de-facto standard that not only is compatible with most MTAs, but
implmentations have been made available for the vast majority of MTAs.

> about the all too predictable result.

Again, I can't speak for John Glube, but I don't think he, or anyone
else who supported F/OSS MTAs, was playing chicken.  MS was told many
times that objections would be raised if their license was not
compatible with F/OSS MTAs.  At the interim meeting, Jim assured us
that it was.  (Or, would be, as the license had not been released at
that time.)

While I'm disappointed that Harry and Jim were not able to get the MS
lawyers to do the right thing, and I'm disappointed that Ted Hardie
shut down the working group, I think that all people who really want
to see an end to email forgery have won this current battle.  If the
SenderID I-Ds had advanced, they would have just created huge market
confusion with the massive deployment problems that the license
creates. 

The war, of course, is not over.  The IETF (Ted, and maybe the former
co-chairs?), Meng, and MS (Harry, Jim, Bob, et al) appear to have
learned nothing from what has happened.  They have done an end-run
around the working group last call by closing down the working group,
but they are still pushing ahead with the PRA under the current
license.  Apparently, they think that when the "individual" I-Ds are
submitted to the IESG and there is an IETF-wide last-call, things will
go better.  I don't see it.

One definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and
expecting different results.  Under this definition, Ted, Meng, Harry,
Jim, et al, are acting quite insane.

I see four choices:

1) Forget about getting a de-jure standard.

2) Drop the PRA.

3) Change the PRA license to be compatible with F/OSS MTAs.

4) Find one or more widely accepted alternative to the PRA that covers
   the 2822.From: identity so that people can reasonably choose
   between the PRA and the alternatives.

Ted, Meng, Harry, Jim et al:  PLEASE!  Wake up and smell the coffee!
We need a anti-forgery system that protects the 2822.From: identity,
we don't need another two-week blowup when the IESG last-call happens.

-wayne

---

From: "Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 10:46:57 -0700

> around the working group last call by closing down the working group,

This is actually something which has me a bit confused;  Craig's
letter said "After discussion with the IETF MARID chairs, we jointly
agreed to move forward with a proposal that provides implementers the
choice of utilizing PRA or MAIL FROM for the Sender ID check
mechanism.  While the working group has recently shut down, we
continue to work with the chairs and key stakeholders to move
forward."

To me this made it sound like Microsoft and the Chairs of the MARID
group had been working together privately behind the scenes and even
before the group was shut down, and that Microsoft continues to
working with the Chairs (are they still chairs if the group no longer
exists?) and "key stakeholders" behind the scenes to advance
(something).
 
Can someone please clarify this for me?  

Thanks,

Anne

---

From: Marshall Rose <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 11:27:41 -0700

> Can someone please clarify this for me?

sure. the wording is more conversational than precise, which is not 
uncommon for press releases, interviews, and other "reporting".

working group chairs and ADs often have discussions with various 
parties in order to better understand their positions, and to suggest 
possible ways they might achieve a compromise with other various 
parties.

nothing gets decided for the working group in such conversations.

for example, i seem to recall an interim meeting, a design team 
meeting, and half-a-dozen conference calls with a whole gallery of 
characters, in order to get some basis for consensus. several of these 
meetings/calls led to various people suggesting different approaches on 
the mailing list, for comment.

nothing particularly unusual or suspect about any of this.

independently, it became clear to the ADs and the WG chairs, solely on 
the basis of the mailing list discussions that consensus wasn't 
possible.

/mtr