Subject: [art] Fwd: Please approve a mailing list or inform me how to Create a mailing list for discussing these projects

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 23:39:56 -0600

There are two mistakes in this email i send, i have no idea whether  
its my fast typing or error introduced by my ISP or service provider  
delivering my emails.

I typed intelligence or artificial intelligence

The spammers email who extorted 850 dollars from me in 2015 and that  
resulted me cashless and harmed by my relatives in palakkad for six  
months and resulting
deactivation of my website and loss of my postings for years i typed
[email-masked]

I have proposed an email whois draft to control spam and cybercrime  
using emails.

A new version of I-D, draft-emailwhois-pradeepkumarxplorer-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Pradeep Kumar Xplorer and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:                draft-emailwhois-pradeepkumarxplorer
Revision:        00
Title:                Extensions to WHois service to allow query on  
email identities
Document date:        2018-07-24
Group:                Individual Submission
Pages:                4
URL:             
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-emailwhois-pradeepkumarxplorer-00.txt
Status:          
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-emailwhois-pradeepkumarxplorer/
Htmlized:        
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-emailwhois-pradeepkumarxplorer-00
Htmlized:        
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-emailwhois-pradeepkumarxplorer

Abstract:
     This document describes the need for a WHois email address service
     similar to the internet domainname WHois service. Theres a need for
     a registered email address as opposed to non-registered email address
     to fight internet SPAM, as well as encouraging email use for personal,
     commercial and legal and all kinds of purposes.An internet user
     can have multiple email identities.

I need professional service from ISP and cannot dispute with them at the risk
of losing my emails.

Pradeep Kumar XPlorer

----- Forwarded message from [email-masked] -----
    Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 07:12:50 -0600
    From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Please approve a mailing list or inform me how to Create  
a mailing list for discussing these projects
      To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]

Quick reply
Please see http://www.pradeepkumarxplorer.com/YogaSequence.txt. Its  
what i as a blogger typed in. I tried to Create an HTML and stopped  
because of some mistakes
half way through as it was tiring and time consuming to search and  
markup. Even using browser extensions, Creating an HTML out of this  
manually can take enough time to be discouraged. I am saying i want  
what can be computationally done at the server side done at the server  
side. If intelligent software has already been Created as browser  
extension, then it has to be available reused
in the server side.

Quoting [email-masked]:

> On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 07:13:42 -0600, [email-masked] said:
>
>> What i proposed is when user types httpi://www.pradeepkumarxplorer.com
>> the information served by pradeepkumarxplorer.com httpd tunnels
>> through another
>> httpi that could be any solution server side scripting that shows the
>> viewer of the information with additional links suggested by the WWW
>> Brain.
>
> 1) No definition of "WWW Brain".
I dont accept your answer. WWW and software has evolved with  
Artificial intelligence
big companies like google use Artificial intelligence. I would say i  
dont have to
define it for engineers. Its Intelligence of Artificial intelligence i  
am meaning.
You have to answer me as a WWW user and not just an engineer.

> 2) If anything, the Web is already *full* of "You may also like..." links
> added by the server side.  Quite obviously:
>   2a) they don't need an httpi:// to insert them
>   2b) they aren't very expensive to insert
>   2c) There's browser extensions to *remove* these
> 3) Therefor, the proper place for adding "additional links" is  
> obviously at the
> user browser end - and there's extensions that will do this sort of thing
> without need of an 'httpi://' protocol definition

This is like saying to buy whats needed for my home, i have to enter  
five markets
instead of one supermarket. WHo enforces that one Supermarket has soy  
milk, orange juice, cornflakes, cheese and eggs. If i have to visit  
more than one more market to satisfy my shopping needs, then its  
inefficient. I as a WIndows Personal computer android user have  
supported the companies that manufacture and market them so i have a  
right to demand that they ship efficient solutions and httpi is more  
efficient than browser extensions.Does IETF enforce any such, then  
they have to enforce this implementation and all httpd services tunnel  
through httpi.
>
> If these additional hyperlinks are something that's to be under user control,
> it's a matter for the browser creators to add a configuration options or
> way for an extension to interact and do the searching. And that will  
> be different
> for Chrome, or Firefox, or Edge, or a MacOS or iOS browser and thus
> not an IETF issue.
The User can always search more, if intelligent profiling can show me  
what i want
in the first place, then its a better user experience.
>
> For a worked example:
>
> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/highlight-to-search/floipahigmmkfhkoapmnijnlnboniglg?hl=en
>
> Highlight the text on the page, and it will go a Google search for  
> more info. No httpi:// needed.
>
> You'll have to explain what problem you're trying to solve that isn't
> already solved.  In addition, you need to explain why a new on-the-network
> protocol (which is what the IETF does) is needed, when it's already been
> demonstrated to be doable without any new protocols or anything else
> that is done by the IETF.
Again, its the same market / supermarket analogy. If i have to enter  
five different markets to purchase my eggs, cheese, coffee, soy milk  
and chocolate then it solves the problem but in a dump and inefficient  
way.
>
>> This saves thousands of hours and possibly millions of dollars for
>> website Creators from manually hypertexting their files using whatever
>> tools like Hypothesiser or many browser extensions available.
>
> Not really. A site that insists on adding their own links will still  
> add their
> own links, no matter what the user signals.  Remember - if your "www brain"
> extension is able to find keywords in the page and add additional links,
> the web server can *also* do the same thing without an httpi:// - and so
> can the user's browser (and probably better, because the user's browser
> can query a site like Google that can make better suggestions because it
> knows what previous queries the user has done...)

Yes, but this is for websites that dont add their links. This is  
consolidation of intelligent searches in one place httpid or httpd  
tunneling through httpi.
>
>> WHat i proposed in my second draft is a switch on the server side that
>> prevents an unauthenticated user from seeing any information and
>> authentication means
>
> First off, if it's a switch on the server side, it's a server  
> configuration issue,
> not an IETF issue.  The way to specify that switch, and how it works, will
> be different for Apache, or ngnix, or IIS, or Squid, or anything else that
> is functioning as a web server or proxy.

No its not configuration issue. I want it enforced that WWW servers  
are mandated to have the option of allowing only authenticated users  
to be served information. I am saying Solaris should not be allowed to  
ship if it does not have that Option.I am a website publisher for last  
14 years and till todate i dont know who views my website and they are  
exploiting me and have harmed me and trying to kill me to exploit the  
WWW subscriber help. This is insider fraud by companies like facebook.  
I have Created something unique and definitely usable by millions. If  
you look at my facebook page http://www.facebook.com/lugimwidnaus only  
one likes it but i have had thousands of viewers  
http://www.pradeepkumarxplorer.com/2016/regions.txt. Its a  
misreprsentation by organised crime. ANd i have had no solution from  
cyberauthorities who might have tools to find out who is accessing my  
website as they are partner to it for money. I dont need that headache  
if i can enforce it using my WWW server. I used shared hosting and its  
something my ISP has to provide in control panel. This enforcement is  
to fight cybercrime.And that IETF should take a serious role in. If  
not which organisation can i propose projects to.

Why is facebook and google 500 Billion dollar companies and me not  
being able to get even a single email from a viewer or subscriber help  
and have no income and has to depend on a mother at the age of 48. I  
am Ubermens and an Ex SUN employee. This is serious crime that has  
destroyed my life.I am saying facebook and google cannot do whatever  
they want. My Ex company seeded Google. I have no income from them nor  
Options enough to publish and not care about subscriber help given to  
me while i was employed in SUN. Someone is claiming i am wealthy and  
continuing the theft and now they want to get away with it and they  
would influence IETF not to approve my draft.
They have attacked me using my mother and her relatives in palakkad  
who are not my society as an adult. I should be in New age california  
with yogins and softwares.Instead i am stuck in palakkad ,only  
information about me is in my own website and i cannot hold  
accountable who has enjoyed my website guidance and journals.The  
viewers are not putting links in their website about my website. I am  
operating publsihing my website as an individual and a clever harmful  
community is claiming it as their creation and exploiting me.IETF did  
not accept my whois email proposal either. IETF is a place where  
engineers from many companies work together to comeup with usable safe  
efficient internet. They have not delivered a SafE internet.
>
> And the user *SHOULD NOT* (in the RFC sense) be specifying information
> to override the server's decision.
>
> Again - there's absolutely nothing stopping the server from doing  
> whatever sort
> of authentication it wants to, and there's no need for IETF action.

IETF has to enforce either only authenticated users access WWW or  
allow a choice of both anonymous and authenticated. I have no problems  
with private surfing but it should be the choice of the publisher and  
not the browser.

> Webservers
> can already do sufficient authentication - and a case can be made  
> that it's not
> the IETF's job to specify that authentication.
>
> The short summary - you're not going to get an IETF list to discuss either
> draft until such time as you show that it's something that is an  
> IETF issue to
> deal with.  And given that both drafts address things that have already been
> done without any IETF action, it's unlikely you'll be able to show that the
> IETF needs to do anything.

I am saying IETF should enforce companies to role out products that  
prevent cybercrime. efcc.nigeria.org@representative among three more  
emails have spammed
me and extorted money from me and had me almost killed me and  
destroyed my website.
They are funded by the anonymous criminals viewing my website and has  
taken the money from viewers who can pay or from companies that i have  
been involved in the past.
I would say a WHOIS email registry implemented and EMail services only  
forwarding
emails from authenticated users would have prevented me recieving such SPAMs.
I dont get SPAMMED in [email-masked] or  
[email-masked], if they are not SPAM the  
clever thieves has made me work 14 years and extorted few billions  
dollars of cash and now they want me to die in India.An email registry  
and modifications to email software can definitely prevent SPAM and  
that i think an organisation like IETF should enforce.
>
>> but someone from ietf.org has deleted my email [email-masked] and
>> i had to use my other email [email-masked]. There's no way  
>> to say in
>> internet that [email-masked] and [email-masked] are the
>> same individual thats me
>
> 1) The deletion may be a hint that somebody at the IETF doesn't want  
> to hear from
> you because your mails aren't related to the IETF.
>
>
Pradeep Kumar Xplorer

----- End forwarded message -----

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 06:06:02 -0600

I have been requested by Mathew A Miller to post to this group. If you  
find any one
interested in this projects in the various WWW companies or active WWW users
please forward them this mailing list so they can involve in discussions

Hello Pradeep,

The best place to start discussion of your documents is the [email-masked]
mailing list, which is set aside for discussion Applications-level topic
such as this; you can subscribe to that list at <
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art >.  We also recommend you read
the "The Tao of IETF" < https://www.ietf.org/about/participate/tao/ > to
help you understand how the IETF works and help you be more successful
in bringing work here.

The creation of non-Working Group mailing requires the approval of an
IESG Area Director (AD).  While each AD can have their own specific
requirements and milestones that need to be met, all rely on showing
that a number of IETF participants are interested in the topic and want
to help develop it.  The best first step is to try and start a
discussion on the < [email-masked] > mailing list and apply any feedback
you receive as best you can.  This can be a very long and involved
process, that relies on convincing others (including one or more ADs)
that the idea is worth doing and worth helping to do it.

It is also important to note that we strive for professional and
constructive conduct on all IETF mailing lists and at meetings; this is
especially true on the [email-masked] mailing list, which reaches
thousands of individuals.  That code is outlined in BCP 54 (RFC 7154)
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7154 >.  Please try not to use what can
appear to be personal attacks or accusations.  While not everyone meet
these guidelines, we still ask that each person do their best to meet
these guidelines at all times regardless of how others behave.

Thank you,

IETF Sargeant-at-Arms

----- Forwarded message from [email-masked] -----
    Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 23:56:31 -0600
    From: [email-masked]
Subject: Please approve a mailing list or inform me how to Create a  
mailing list for discussing these projects
      To: [email-masked], [email-masked]

Hello

Please approve a mailing list for these drafts or inform me of  
procedure how to Create
one.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pradeepkumarxplorer-httpi/
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pradeepkumarxplorer-httpuserinfo/

Pradeep Kumar Xplorer

----- End forwarded message -----

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 06:07:22 -0600

----- Forwarded message from [email-masked] -----
    Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 05:12:17 -0400
    From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Please approve a mailing list or inform me how to Create  
a mailing list for discussing these projects
      To: [email-masked]
      Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-pradeepkumarxplorer-httpuserinfo/

These are both one-paragraph drafts calling for solutions to problems  
that have
been solved quite some time ago.

'httpi://' isn't needed, because we already have all the pieces we need to do
this.  In fact, if anything, many websites have so many "related" and "you
might be interested in" links that we've coined the term "clickbait" for
attempts to get your attention among the mass of links.  And let's face it -
this is a service that should be under the user's control.  This has two
results:

1) It doesn't need to be sent to the destination site so they can decorate the
page they're sending you, so a new protocol isn't needed.

2) Since it's better done by the user, what you *really* want is a browser
extension that does all the markup and searching, without the user even having
to type 'httpi://'.  For example, see how Chrome or Firefox can deal with the
user typing a search string into the URL bar, and giving suggested completions
- each new set of completions was an entire new query from the browser to a
search engine.  Or see any of the many browser extensions that do real-time
markup of pages - everything from replacing all pictures of Donald Trump in
news stories with pictures of kittens, to extended search and annotation, to a
whole bunch of other things:

Annotation:  
https://www.maketecheasier.com/google-chrome-extensions-annotate-text-on-the-web/
Searching for related terms:  
https://www.pcworld.com/article/2158690/improve-your-search-chops-and-save-time-with-these-chrome-extensions.html
Word definitions:  
https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/7-chrome-extensions-lookup-words-meanings-browse/

(Think for a moment about how the web extension knows that the picture
is one of Donald Trump... that's not as easy as it looks...)

And userinfo isn't needed either - we already know how to do  
authenticated user
via any number of means - anything from per-user PKI certificates, to userid/
password schemes, to 2-factor authentication with physical tokens or biometric
information, to a whole collection of other methods.

As your userinfo draft says:

     " Right now to hide sensitive or subscription based information i  
have to implement username
     password restrictions in the website code i am publishing.I  
should be able to say that
     only a HTTP client request that has in addition to location and  
IP address some User information
     should be served information from my website."

You probably want to find out who Jeff Bezos is, and why his company was able
to work around this problem and make billions of dollars.  Also,  
you'll need to
explain *why* "you should be able to", and why it requires a new protocol, and
why other solutions aren't sufficient.

Hint 1 - how do weather.com and  Google Maps know where you are? (Google even
knows which way I'm facing with the cellphone.. think about that for a bit
while you think about how you're going to explain a new protocol is needed to
do that...)

Hint 2 - the Internet is growing increasingly mobile - so "location" isn't a
very reliable identifier any more.  I've paid utility bills from a laptop
tethered to a cellphone while at a Boy Scout camp 6 hours drive from where I
live - so it isn't safe to say that "me" is only at my apartment or my office.
In addition, if it reports "the wireless network at Virginia Tech" as my
location, that doesn't separate me from all the other users, because that
"location" is a single wireless SSID that spans 2,000+ access points in 200
buildings and over 19,000 users during weekday afternoons when classes are in
session.

In short, "Me" isn't tied to a location, and a location usually doesn't
identify "me" as opposed to everybody else using the network/cellphone at that
location.

Hint 3 - you still have an authentication issue.  You're unclear whether your
website should get the information as part of the user's http request, or from
a third party. If you're getting it from the user, you'd just re-invented the
very bad idea of user-side authentication - you're relying on the user to be
honest and not send you false authenticators (and of course, the Bad Guys(tm)
will send falsified information).  If you're calling a third party, you avoid
the user-side authentication problem, but now have a different problem - you
have only the information the user provided - an IP address and *maybe* a
userid/password, as information that you can send this third party to get your
"userinfo" data.

Hint 4 - you can work around those problems in Hint 3 if you're clever - at
which point you've re-invented "identity provider services" such as  
Shibboleth:
https://www.shibboleth.net/ which can be used for cross-organization
single-sign-on, and leveraged to provide services such as EduRoam:
https://www.eduroam.org/ - the end result is that I can be visiting Europe, go
to Riga Technical University, and authenticate to their wireless network - but
only if I know my userid/password at Virginia Tech and have either a specific
Yubikey 4 with me, or one of several other 2-factor authenticators  
supported by
Virginia Tech.  One of those involves calling my cellphone (which has a phone
number assigned to the southwest part of Virginia, in the US - and having it
ring even if I'm in eastern Europe. Think about that for a moment)

And all this stuff gets done without any new protocols being needed...

To get a mailing list for these proposals, you'll have to convince people that
these solved problems are in fact not solved, and explain what's wrong  
with the
solutions, and do so in a way that demonstrates that you do in fact  
know what's
already doable without these new protocols....

Good luck, you're going to need it....

----- End forwarded message -----

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 06:09:11 -0600

----- Forwarded message from [email-masked] -----
    Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 18:24:45 -0400
    From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Please approve a mailing list or inform me how to Create  
a mailing list for discussing these projects
      To: [email-masked]
      Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]

> big companies like google use Artificial intelligence.

And oddly enough, Google is able to use this AI without needing an  
httpi://, and
browser extensions are able to do similar, also without needing an httpi://
Which is why you need to explain exactly why the IETF should bother with
dealing with these drafts.

>                                                               I  
> would say i  dont have to
> define it for engineers. Its Intelligence of Artificial intelligence  
> i  am meaning.

Actually, since the IETF is a standards organization, a definition  
*is* needed.
And a very precise one, such that engineers can follow it and guarantee
interoperability. All known corner cases must be identified and dealt  
with.  As
a worked example, consider this RFC:

5987 Character Set and Language Encoding for Hypertext Transfer Protocol
      (HTTP) Header Field Parameters. J. Reschke. August 2010. (Format:
      TXT=20108 bytes) (Obsoleted by RFC8187) (Status: HISTORIC) (DOI:
      10.17487/RFC5987)

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5987

10 pages specifying in high detail *exactly* how to do one very small part of
HTTP handling: encode non-ASCII data into HTTP headers.

You're going to need to explain your "WWW brain" in equally detailed  
syntax and
semantics, not just handwaving.  What the browser does when a user enters
'httpi://', what it sends to a server, how the server responds, including all
the possible error codes, and how the user's browser should react to the
various errors.

I'll provide a hint: You may want to learn enough about HTTP so you  
realize that
most extension to the base HTTP/1.1 specification are done as  
additional header
fields rather than a new httpX:// protocol.  (For example, there's a  
very specific
on-the-network protocol issue why we even have an https:// at all

And learn enough about browser design to figure out how to Make It Just Work
for a user without having to specify httpi:// (which will be important for
things like search engines or embedded links - otherwise a user will  
have to do
a "copy URL to clipboard", then paste it into the URL bar, and add an 'i' to
the http. And do it every link they want this new feature on)

But, of course, first you need to explain your idea in sufficient  
detail that makes
it clear that the IETF should work on it.  The fact that it's already  
being done
all over the place without your idea means you'll need some very good reasons
indeed....

> I as a WIndows Personal computer android user have supported the companies
> that manufacture and market them so i have a right to demand that they ship

You can *request* they do so.  You're not in a position to *demand*  
it. I'm not
in a position to demand it, either.  Neither is the IETF - it merely
standardizes the "if you're going to do it, it should be done this exact way".
Think of it as traffic laws for the Internet, standardizing the design of cars
and trucks and traffic signs.

> efficient solutions and httpi is more efficient than browser extensions.

Show actual proof that it's more efficient.  Include network traces,  
round trip
times, network utilization statistics, and other relevant data.  Handle
latency, bandwidth needed at the server end, and bandwidth needed at  
the client
end.  Make sure you cover all the common cases: non-overlapped requests,
multiple overlapped requests to multiple servers, and multiple overlapped
requests over one connection to one server.

Note that this can be difficult - for instance, https://www.cnn.com makes
references to *at least* 31 different servers.  And that's not  
counting all the
references stopped by my ad-blocker - without that, there would undoubtedly
be many more than just 31.

> Does IETF enforce any such, then they have to enforce this implementation and
> all httpd services tunnel through httpi.

Remember what I said about error codes?  This is a good example.  What happens
if you send httpi:// to a server running older software that doesn't  
support it
(which at the present time means "every single one out there")?  This  
means you
need to worry about things like versioning and forward and backward
compatability. And again - you have to be *specific* as to what error the
server sends, and what the browser does in response, so that a software
engineer implementing this for Edge or Chrome is able to make it work based on
the specification.

Feel free to come back when you've gotten it to a state that the IETF can use.

----- End forwarded message -----

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 06:08:16 -0600

----- Forwarded message from [email-masked] -----
    Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 19:35:58 -0400
    From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Please approve a mailing list or inform me how to Create  
      Cc: [email-masked]

For a worked example:

> tools like Hypothesiser or many browser extensions available.

Not really. A site that insists on adding their own links will still add their

Again - there's absolutely nothing stopping the server from doing  
whatever sort
of authentication it wants to, and there's no need for IETF action. Webservers
can already do sufficient authentication - and a case can be made that  
it's not
the IETF's job to specify that authentication.

draft until such time as you show that it's something that is an IETF issue to

> i had to use my other email [email-masked]. There's no way to say in

2) The fact that you can't tell the internet that two email addresses  
are the same
person is a good example of why your 'userinfo' proposal isn't  
workable.  (Plus, it's
not even a fixed relationship - I have multiple email addresses, and I  
have some
sites that I have told that (for example) 3 of the 5 addresses are  
actually the same
person - but there's other sites that I do *NOT* want then deciding  
that address A
and B and C are the same person.  There's no way for a 'userinfo'  
service to securely
get that right.

----- End forwarded message -----