Re: [spfbis] Call for adoption: draft-kitterman-4408bis

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 09:46:29AM +0200, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
> Is this because there /has/ to be an IPR?  (Otherwise, I don't
> understand why that patent would concern SPF, given that the
> referenced IPR 434 was related to Sender ID only.)

As the person who filed the IPR disclosure, I can tell you that it is
because someone pointed out
http://www.microsoft.com/openspecifications/en/us/programs/osp/security/default.aspx
to me.  That page clearly claims to cover RFC 4408.

> I hope that does not imply that there is nothing to be discussed about
> SPF, and look forward to an open-minded meeting.

As we said in the original note, adopting a document as the basis for
work does not mean that the document is ready.  It means that it is a
starting point for the work.

As for the meeting in Vancouver, we'll only meet in person if there
are things to sort out in person.  Most work can be done on the
mailing list.  But if there are apparently issues that are not moving
forward on the list, we'll meet in Vancouver.

Best,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]