The problem with doing this in the IETF is that the IETF does not have an institution wide patent policy. Every WG creates its own policy.
Given the mostly-free-software nature of the e-mail server world, I consider that a feature. But of course I'd prefer the IETF to adopt an institution wide free-software-compatible IPR policy.
The ASF position was that there was no alternative but for Microsoft to change.
I doubt that's true. I think the ASF (and Debian) position was that there was no alternative but to have a free-software-compatible patent license. Nobody really cared why this requirement postulated by some wasn't met (i.e. whether it was due to Microsoft's marketing strategy or whatever), just that it wasn't met. There would have been no point in ceding that position because, assuming MARID would have successfully produced a protocol, then it couldn't have been implemented by all the free MTAs and other free e-mail software out there. It seems that even Microsoft has now come to recognizing this fact.
The obsession with blocking the PRA check only began when a few zealots started to worry about the fact that people might dare to check their email with Microsoft's patented PRA check.
There are two issues that you need to keep separate. A: people objected to the inclusion of a technology in the upcoming e-mail authentication standard that was covered by a free-software-incompatible patent license. B: people objected to their "v=spf1" records being deliberately misinterpreted, causing technical problems for them. IMO, both objections were (and are) justified, but still these are separate issues.
Now that a technology covered by a free-software-incompatible patent license (=PRA) has not become part of the upcoming e-mail authentication standard (now there is not "one"), nobody really cares much anymore what happens to the PRA license. Only the technical issues of the "v=spf1"/PRA reuse (B) remain.
The PRA has always been offered on royalty free terms. Why is that particular filter the one you make such a song and dance over rather than the royalty bearing ones?
Because "royalty free" isn't the same as "free software compatible". The former as in "free beer", the latter as in "free speech", yadda yadda. As a developer of free e-mail software, I did not wish to be excluded from implementing the upcoming e-mail authentication standard, so I shared the objection.
Some of what you write is debatable, but some isn't.
The original patent license terms were not unusual or unreasonable. It was just that a number of persons decided to make an objection in this case to a practice that nobody had objected to for over a decade.
Saying that is ignoring the facts. Both the ASF and the Debian project classified the Microsoft's license for their patent as inherently incompatible with free software. And patents on e-mail standards, unlike patents on many other IT technologies, are a very particular problem because a very large (if not the larger) part of the e-mail server world runs on free software. Go read the ASF's and Debian's explanations, they certainly did do their homework.
Sender-ID is not incompatible with SPF as alleged. The only difference is at the recipient side and the recipient cannot be forced to interpret SPF or Sender-ID in any particular way.
(To be explicit about my motives: I am the one who appealed to the IESG/IAB on behalf of the SPF project about the reuse of "v=spf1" records for the PRA algorithm in the Sender ID specification.)
You correctly point out that a communication standard is little more than a silent agreement between senders and receivers that only works if the receiving party tries their best not to misinterpret what the sending party meant. But then you simply quit the subject, assuming that communication standards will work even with everyone interpreting stuff their way, because, after all, there is no protocol police, thank you. Sorry, but "compatible" means something else to me.
We had agreement in the WG to proceed on a common spec and nobody found any problems until the patent issue was raised.
Again you are missing the facts. Quoting from my appeal to the IESG:
Slashdot Mirror
Given the mostly-free-software nature of the e-mail server world, I consider that a feature. But of course I'd prefer the IETF to adopt an institution wide free-software-compatible IPR policy.
I doubt that's true. I think the ASF (and Debian) position was that there was no alternative but to have a free-software-compatible patent license. Nobody really cared why this requirement postulated by some wasn't met (i.e. whether it was due to Microsoft's marketing strategy or whatever), just that it wasn't met. There would have been no point in ceding that position because, assuming MARID would have successfully produced a protocol, then it couldn't have been implemented by all the free MTAs and other free e-mail software out there. It seems that even Microsoft has now come to recognizing this fact.
There are two issues that you need to keep separate. A: people objected to the inclusion of a technology in the upcoming e-mail authentication standard that was covered by a free-software-incompatible patent license. B: people objected to their "v=spf1" records being deliberately misinterpreted, causing technical problems for them. IMO, both objections were (and are) justified, but still these are separate issues.
Now that a technology covered by a free-software-incompatible patent license (=PRA) has not become part of the upcoming e-mail authentication standard (now there is not "one"), nobody really cares much anymore what happens to the PRA license. Only the technical issues of the "v=spf1"/PRA reuse (B) remain.
Because "royalty free" isn't the same as "free software compatible". The former as in "free beer", the latter as in "free speech", yadda yadda. As a developer of free e-mail software, I did not wish to be excluded from implementing the upcoming e-mail authentication standard, so I shared the objection.
Some of what you write is debatable, but some isn't.
Saying that is ignoring the facts. Both the ASF and the Debian project classified the Microsoft's license for their patent as inherently incompatible with free software. And patents on e-mail standards, unlike patents on many other IT technologies, are a very particular problem because a very large (if not the larger) part of the e-mail server world runs on free software. Go read the ASF's and Debian's explanations, they certainly did do their homework.
(To be explicit about my motives: I am the one who appealed to the IESG/IAB on behalf of the SPF project about the reuse of "v=spf1" records for the PRA algorithm in the Sender ID specification.)
You correctly point out that a communication standard is little more than a silent agreement between senders and receivers that only works if the receiving party tries their best not to misinterpret what the sending party meant. But then you simply quit the subject, assuming that communication standards will work even with everyone interpreting stuff their way, because, after all, there is no protocol police, thank you. Sorry, but "compatible" means something else to me.
Again you are missing the facts. Quoting from my appeal to the IESG:
Read the appeal. It connects a lot of dots that many do not like to remember.