Cover Pages Logo SEARCH
Advanced Search
Site Map
CP RSS Channel
Contact Us
Sponsoring CP
About Our Sponsors

Cover Stories
Articles & Papers
Press Releases

XML Query

XML Applications
General Apps
Government Apps
Academic Apps

Technology and Society
Tech Topics
Related Standards


IETF MARID WG Co-Chair Judgment of Consensus on Last Call

Date:      Sat, 11 Sep 2004 13:59:06 -0400
From:      Andrew Newton <>
To:        IETF MARID WG <>
Subject:   co-chair judgment of consensus related to last call period of 23-Aug-2004 to 10-Sept-2004

The following is the judgment of the co-chairs relating to consensus within the MARID working group during the last call period of 23-August-2004 through 10-September-2004.

  1. On the issue of using a DNS name prefix, there is at least rough consensus that no prefix should be used.

  2. On the issue of compliance with the use of the TXT record, the working group has at least rough consensus that TXT usage is acceptable for compliance and should not be specified as a configuration that will be non-compliant. However, there is at least rough consensus that the use of the SPF-specific record type is more desirable than the use of a TXT record type. It is the opinion of the co-chairs that the -protocol document clearly state that the usage of TXT records will most likely be deprecated by future protocol definition.

  3. On the issue of ignoring patent claims, the working group has at least rough consensus that the patent claims should not be ignored. Additionally, there is at least rough consensus that the participants of the working group cannot accurately describe the specific claims of the patent application. This stems from the fact that the patent application is not publicly available. Given this, it is the opinion of the co-chairs that MARID should not undertake work on alternate algorithms reasonably thought to be covered by the patent application. We do feel that future changes regarding the patent claim or its associated license could significantly change the consensus of the working group, and at such a time it would be appropriate to consider new work of this type.

  4. On the issue of the ABNF in section 3.4.1 of -protocol and multiple scopes, there is at least rough consensus to allow the syntax and record structure to support multiple scopes.

With regard to items 3 and 4 above, it is also the opinion of the co-chairs that any attempt by the MARID working group to define any new scopes other than "mailfrom" and "pra" for the SPF syntax will at this time result in failure to find consensus within the working group.

The document authors have agreed to producing new drafts intended to meet the chartered work item, and a consensus call on them or the appropriate diffs will be forthcoming. This work plan does not include scopes outside of "mail from" and "pra", and it is our opinion that no new work items of this type should be considered until MARID has successfully produced a first specification.

-MARID co-chairs
Marshall T. Rose and Andrew Newton


Prepared by Robin Cover for The XML Cover Pages archive. See background in the news story "Apache Software Foundation Rejects Microsoft Patent License Agreement for Sender ID."

Globe Image

Document URL:  —  Legal stuff