Re: [FYI] Microsoft's spam plan rejected

[Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>]

Okay, hier kommt das Orignal, Archive sind etwas schwierig aufzutun
(GMANE ist auch gerade down, wie es scheint).

Wie es jetzt weitergeht, ist mir nicht klar, weil viele entgegen den
Co-Chairs m.W. davon ausgehen, daß sich die Microsoft-Patentanmeldung
gerade auf PRA (d.h. die Weise, wie die SPF-Markierungen von Domains
auf die einzelnen E-Mail-Adressen in einer Nachricht angewendet
werden) bezieht.

Das ganze ist übrigens keine Geschichte "Open Source vs. Microsoft",
denn Sendmail Inc., die Macher hinter einem nicht ganzen unwichtigen
MTA, der zumindest teilweise quelloffen ist, unterstützen offenbar
Sender-ID, mit oder ohne Microsoft-Patent-Lizenz.


To: IETF MARID WG <ietf-mxcomp@imc.org>
From: Andrew Newton <andy@hxr.us>
Subject: co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-mxcomp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
List-ID: <ietf-mxcomp.imc.org>


The following is the judgment of the co-chairs relating to consensus
within the MARID working group during the last call period of
23-August-2004 through 10-September-2004.

1) On the issue of using a DNS name prefix, there is at least rough
consensus that no prefix should be used.

2) On the issue of compliance with the use of the TXT record, the
working group has at least rough consensus that TXT usage is acceptable
for compliance and should not be specified as a configuration that will
be non-compliant.  However, there is at least rough consensus that the
use of the SPF-specific record type is more desirable than the use of a
TXT record type.  It is the opinion of the co-chairs that the -protocol
document clearly state that the usage of TXT records will most likely
be deprecated by future protocol definition.

3) On the issue of ignoring patent claims, the working group has at
least rough consensus that the patent claims should not be ignored.
Additionally, there is at least rough consensus that the participants
of the working group cannot accurately describe the specific claims of
the patent application. This stems from the fact that the patent
application is not publicly available.  Given this, it is the opinion
of the co-chairs that MARID should not undertake work on alternate
algorithms reasonably thought to be covered by the patent application.
We do feel that future changes regarding the patent claim or its
associated license could significantly change the consensus of the
working group, and at such a time it would be appropriate to consider
new work of this type.

4) On the issue of the ABNF in section 3.4.1 of -protocol and multiple
scopes, there is at least rough consensus to allow the syntax and
record structure to support multiple scopes.

With regard to items 3 and 4 above, it is also the opinion of the
co-chairs that any attempt by the MARID working group to define any new
scopes other than "mailfrom" and "pra" for the SPF syntax will at this
time result in failure to find consensus within the working group.

The document authors have agreed to producing new drafts intended to
meet the chartered work item, and a consensus call on them or the
appropriate diffs will be forthcoming.  This work plan does not include
scopes outside of "mail from" and "pra", and it is our opinion that no
new work items of this type should be considered until MARID has
successfully produced a first specification.

-MARID co-chairs

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: debate-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: debate-help@lists.fitug.de