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

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Mon, 04 February 2019 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: extra@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/extra/7Jh8CYYQAskFAk_xD6rPXeyZ1ac>
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
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend <extra.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/extra/>
List-Post: <mailto:extra@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2019 15:41:09 -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
>