Re: [art] [Extra] Need for associating Internet Unique names to device address and phone numbers and emails ability to send messages using sms and email
John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 04 February 2019 15:41 UTC
Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56A29130E84; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 07:41:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yYUKdWPNeY6A; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 07:41:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (ns.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 54122130E81; Mon, 4 Feb 2019 07:41:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1gqgMp-0004rt-H1; Mon, 04 Feb 2019 10:41:03 -0500
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 10:40:57 -0500
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: pradeep xplorer <pradeepan88@hotmail.com>
cc: extra@ietf.org, art@ietf.org
Message-ID: <2FDF95ED8057DE7E6BD32DDF@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <HK0PR03MB4099F5A63BB7C47A73809EA5B76D0@HK0PR03MB4099.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <HK0PR03MB40992846EB71CD520F11BA28B76C0@HK0PR03MB4099.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com> <alpine.OSX.2.20.1902032110020.1463@mac-allocchio3> <HK0PR03MB409949A9BABAC3A305802608B76D0@HK0PR03MB4099.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com> <fcac4bab-795f-48cf-9dee-c92b4c6daff0@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <HK0PR03MB40999178A3809EF71E671161B76D0@HK0PR03MB4099.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com> <2e9667a7-95ac-4db6-9a56-f5d3454ad9d5@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <HK0PR03MB4099385E96AC4A553410000EB76D0@HK0PR03MB4099.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com> <19ead1f9-84a0-4cee-9f9f-93737ce2095c@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <HK0PR03MB4099F5A63BB7C47A73809EA5B76D0@HK0PR03MB4099.apcprd03.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/HQuet2f6iEMq2R2IcDXtw9ykIvo>
Subject: Re: [art] [Extra] Need for associating Internet Unique names to device address and phone numbers and emails ability to send messages using sms and email
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 15:41:08 -0000
Pradeep, I've tried to advise you offlist about topics like this and promptly had my note copied to the list, as you have done with Arnt. Based on experience, Julian's note asking you to not forward such messages represents the general consensus of the IETF community, but let me address the more technical side of the issue and make one last attempt to clarify; if this keeps up, I will then join others in what I assume they have done, which is to modify my mail system to simply drop your incoming messages and in urging the sergeants at arms and ADs to simply ban you from all IETF lists. This note would normally have been sent privately, but you have made it clear that would be a waste of time and energy. However, I'm not going to further clutter the list by responding to any attempt to turn this note into an extended on-list conversation. There are two main reasons for replying offlist to a posting to an IETF list. one is the one Arnt cited: you appear to be showing some basic misunderstanding or ignorance of fundamental issues underlying what you are proposing. Sending a response off list cuts down on-list noise from a mini-tutorial or discussion of a topic that most of those in the list are presumed to understand and, if there is simply a misunderstanding, it can provide an opportunity to clarify issues (without involving everyone on the list) and then to return to the list with a clarified version of the description or proposal. There is also an old principle in at least some cultures that, under most circumstances, it is better to criticize in private and praise in public. "You just don't understand this, let me try to explain it" is normally a very mild form of criticism if it is interpreted as criticism at all, but at least some of us prefer to keep such comments off-list, if only in the hope that comments will be taken in the constructive spirit in which they are intended rather that as a public attack. If you see some of such notes as abusive, you should certainly complain but, fwiw, I don't see anything abusive in Arnt's note, this note, or my earlier one that you forwarded to the list with a claim that I'm part of a conspiracy against you. The private notes of explanation have one more advantage in your particular situation (at least as I understand it). If one of us feels that there is something that affects the plausibility of one of your proposals and explains that to you off list, that is just a private conversation among colleagues. I hope people will extend me the same courtesy when I misunderstand or overlook something about one of my proposals. I misunderstand, overlook things, and explain badly more often than I would wish and Arnt, among many others, has been helpful and courteous enough to explain and to help me understand and deal with the difference between my ignorance and my sometimes-hasty and insufficient explanations. However, when you repost those explanations on list, you create a public record that either your expertise isn't as deep and broad as you have often claimed or that, regardless of what it might once have been, you haven't stayed current. Whatever else is going on with you and your situation, you don't benefit from that. Whether it is relevant to your decision to post Arnt's note back to the list or not, we have discussed topics like what appear to be attempts to justify technical proposals on the basis of your yoga practice and expertise, the problems with your web site and compensation, and so on. Those situations and associated difficulties may get you a more careful hearing than others might for the same proposals --they certain have from me-- but they are not going to get an otherwise-defective proposal accepted... and, as with the above, the public attempts may not be positive for your professional reputation. Arnt, myself, and others have been trying to help you, both generally and specifically to help formulate and present proposals that have a chance of succeeding. Your responding by reposting notes or claiming on-list that we are part of some conspiracy against you is not only inappropriate but discourages those efforts. regards, john --On Monday, February 4, 2019 14:35 +0000 pradeep xplorer <pradeepan88@hotmail.com> wrote: > I dont accept your decision to give me an off list reply i > repeat i am a serious yoga guide using website being exploited > and harmed. so you need to address it in the archives so i get > a solution. > > Sent from MailDroid<https://goo.gl/ODgwBb> > > -----Original Message----- > From: Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@gulbrandsen.priv.no> > To: pradeep xplorer <pradeepan88@hotmail.com> > Sent: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 19:06 > Subject: Re: [Extra] [art] Need for associating Internet > Unique names to device address and phone numbers and emails > ability to send messages using sms and email > > Offlist reply, since I don't want to bother the lists with a > tutorial on addressing. > > MAC addresses need to be unique within a collision domain, not > in the world. Half of the address space is set aside to the > scheme you've heard of, where manufacturers assign one or more > MACs each time they manufacture a device. However, since many > network devices don't have an manufacturer, the other half is > set aside for people who need or prefer to implement another > addressing scheme. > > This means that a public cloud vendors (which needs a MAC > address for each virtual server it rents out) can define its > an addressing scheme using the second half of the address > space, and so long as the cloud service's addresses are unique > within that building/area/company, everything works. > > If you rent a server at AWS, its MAC address can actually > change over time. > > Arnt >
- Re: [art] Need for associating Internet Unique na… Claudio Allocchio
- Re: [art] [Extra] Need for associating Internet U… Arnt Gulbrandsen
- Re: [art] [Extra] Need for associating Internet U… Ned Freed
- Re: [art] [Extra] Need for associating Internet U… Julian Reschke
- Re: [art] [Extra] Need for associating Internet U… Bron Gondwana
- Re: [art] [Extra] Need for associating Internet U… John C Klensin
- Re: [art] [Extra] Need for associating Internet U… Ned Freed
- Re: [art] [Extra] Need for associating Internet U… Adam Roach