Re: Motion to abandon Sender ID

[Yakov Shafranovich <research@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
> The fear is that a casual patent be turned into a fundamental one
> by virtue of it being made into a standard. The RAMBUS concern is
> a real one.
>
> This is something that I believe should be decided at the level
> of the community as a whole rather than one working group and
> further should allow for license terms to be accepted on a 
> general basis so that we do not have this issue in every case.

I agree with Phil that this is something should be raised on a community 
level for the entire IETF since it is bound to come up again. But that 
might be something more suitable for another forum. The question is what 
are we supposed to do in regards to Sender-ID? Approving it on the WG 
level might be considered "final approval" and alienate sizable portions 
of the community. Not approving it, will push Microsoft and others away. 
I don't know if either side will bother taking into account the finer 
distinctions of the IETF approval process. Kind of a catch-22?

Perhaps guidance from the IESG might be helpful here.

> We might be able to get further if we knew the reason for Microsoft's
> insistence on explicit execution of a contract. They appear to me
> to have a concern about notice of the contract terms and believe
> that constructive notice may not be effective in achieving 
> reciprocity.

They are reading the list.

Yakov