Kai Henningsen <kaih@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > 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. That is not how I read their letters. > > 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. In what way? Microsoft now knows that with the mere threat of a patent it either can shut down IETF standards work it dislikes or seize control of the results through the patent system. The IETF has dignaled that it will do nothing to oppose or prevent these outcomes. > The raid *failed* - thanks to the IETF doing the right thing. It looks like success to me. -- <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a> _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf