esr@xxxxxxxxxxx (Eric S. Raymond) wrote on 11.10.04 in <20041011153934.GC7804@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > Kai Henningsen <kaih@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > Why is that bad? > > There were, actually, two bad parts: > > 1. Two major open-source development groups felt it was both necessary > and appropriate to state that they would not implement SenderID > regardless of IETF's decision. This is specifically what I meant > by routing around the IETF. You are confusing "will not" with "cannot" here. It's not "we don't want SenderID", it's "we cannot use SenderID even if we want to". Thus, it is about (legal) facts, not about refusing cooperation. > 2. IETF failed to take any position opposing the patent in spite of > both prior art and the belief of key participants that Microsoft > deliberately lied about its position and intentions. By doing so, IETF > signaled that there will be no downside to even the most blatant > patent raid on a development standard, and invited future raids by > Microsoft and others. Given that the WG was shutdown with no ratified standard, this also seems like a serious misrepresentation. The raid *failed* - thanks to the IETF doing the right thing. MfG Kai _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf