Re: RFC 3929 on Alternative Decision Making Processes for Consens us-Blocked Decisions in the IETF (fwd)

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> 
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 09:52:20PM +0200,
>  Markus Stumpf <[email protected]> wrote 
>  a message of 21 lines which said:
> 
> > But the last two days (german) IT news are fill with press reports
> > that MS will loosen the patent policy
> 
> I do not think that Microsoft announced anything concrete on the
> patent front. Does anyone has a reference?

What they said is that they will (have already?) modify their 2nd patent 
application so it is not so broad and does not cover RFC2821 identities
and SPF classic - 
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-5426045.html
"The software giant said Monday that it has rewritten Sender ID--a 
 specification for verifying the authenticity of e-mail with Internet 
 Protocol records--to address criticisms of the spec's earlier incarnation. 
 Among other changes, Microsoft removed language in its pending patents
 for SenderID that could have included claims to Sender Permitted From, 
 or SPF, a widely used system for e-mail authentication that was merged 
 with Microsoft's CallerID for Email to create Sender ID, according to 
 Microsoft's Ryan Hamlin."

(P.S. I'm going to contact the author of that article to fix the last
 paragrapth and not mislead people to think that IETF has granted any
 status to the documents - in fact new senderid spec has not even been
 published as a draft yet)

There was nothing anywhere about them changing their license agreement
and they appear to have no plans for that (rumors are that some Microsoft
employes who have participated in MARID did ask to get different license
agreement that would work better for F/OSS software but that request has 
been declined at Microsoft at the very highiest level).
 
> > ... and that the IETF is now supporting Sender-Id? 
> 
> This is certainly false. IETF supports nothing since the disbanding of
> the MARID Working Group (the new Microsoft Internet-Draft has not even
> been published by IETF, probably because it was submitted after the
> cutoff - http://www.ietf.org/meetings/cutoff_dates_61.html).
> 

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[email protected]