Micorsoft's Sender ID Authentication......?

Wasn't there a lot of turmoil within the IETF last year
on sender authentication because Microsoft was trying to
push it's own sender ID authetication mechasnisms as a
draft standard?

In part the problem was 'legal' (versus technical)...the folks involved in the working list from MS...technical people, offered ongoing reassurance that the as-yet-unpublished patent apps were benign, that it would always be available free, etc. etc... but once the patent apps were published, they were far over-reaching, included SPF aspects, etc.. (I have _zero_ doubt that the legal/corporate folks upstairs at MS were responsible for that, and that the good folks from MS on the working list were as surprised as were the rest of us).

Anne

Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
President/CEO
Institute for Spam and Internet Public Policy
IADB Email Sender Accreditation Database: How the 'Good Senders' List Works - Get to the Inbox by ISIPP SuretyMail
Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of SJ
Advisor, Kinar Secure Email
Advisor, Relemail Email Privacy Certification
Advisor, Virus Bulletin
Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop Planning Committee

In part the problem was 'legal' (versus technical)...the folks involved
in the working list from MS...technical people, offered ongoing
reassurance that the as-yet-unpublished patent apps were benign, that

Folks,

For all the reasons already cited in this thread, it's clear that legal
concerns were a factor.

However the reality is that the IETF working group was not converging on
consensus and showed no ability to repair this fatal barrier. The legal
issues were part of this, but it is far from obvious that fixing the legal
issues would have gotten a better outcome.

Besides the criticisms of the basic path registration (somewhat akin to
registering source routes) schemes used by SPF and Sender-ID, those two
different specs have different constituencies and were not overly
successful as merging.

  d/