PRA is dead. Media, nanae/nanabl.(was Re: Work plan for Sender ID)

[Matthew Elvey <matthew@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 9/13/2004 8:46 PM, wayne sent forth electrons to convey:

> I think continuing with the PRA is a very poor use of this working
> group's time.
I agree with the majority.  If a small minority (the Chairs) wish to 
continue to claim that is not what the WG is doing, I won't try to stop 
them. But the WG is not interested in PRA, for reasons well expressed 
by, e.g. William Leibzon in this thread.  And that's what DOES matter, 
because this is the IETF, and that's how things work here.  It would be 
nice if the several clear requests of the Chairs to eliminate 
IPR-encumbered solutions from the running not be given short shrift, but 
then elimination of the encumberances would be nice too.  Instead, 
document authors need to produce new drafts intended to meet the 
chartered work items, and a consensus call on them is needed*.  
Marid-mpr is such an item.   They will find rough consensus if they are 
well written and well defended, because, again, this is the IETF.   If 
you try to ram junk through, you induce posts like this.

*Contrast this sentence with the fait-accompli tone of "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."  I had written "*new* document authors ..." 
but Meng just posted again about HELO, so there's hope...

=-=-=-=-=

More media coverage of MARID - FYI:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/13/ietf_bounces_sender_id/

BTW, if anyone is following nanae or nanabl and has noticed interesting 
threads discussing our work here, I'd be interested in links.  Some of 
the battle-hardened know rather well what tricks spammers [might] use.
Kinda answered my own question - found some months old posts:
I found support from Bill Cole: (who posts here too, seems to be letting 
folks there know of milestones reached - thanks.)
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=bill-55E121.16123407082004%40fireproof.scconsult.com&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fnum%3D20%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26scoring%3Dd%26q%3Dmarid%2Babuse%26btnG%3DSearch
Anton Squeegee: <sic>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=bill-55E121.16123407082004%40fireproof.scconsult.com&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fnum%3D20%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26scoring%3Dd%26q%3Dmarid%2Babuse%26btnG%3DSearch
Vernon Schryver: tough criticism, but answerable with something that's 
easy enough to implement that it can become mandatory in a reasonable 
time period:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=bill-6C26C6.21474829072004%40fireproof.scconsult.com&rnum=4&prev=/groups%3Fnum%3D20%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26scoring%3Dd%26q%3Dmarid%2Babuse%26btnG%3DSearch