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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 23:56:31 -0600

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

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 05:12:17 -0400

> 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....

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2018 19:35:58 -0400

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".
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

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.

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.

> 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...)

> 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.

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. 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.

> 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.

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.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 07:12:50 -0600

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.

> 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.

> 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.
> for Chrome, or Firefox, or Edge, or a MacOS or iOS browser and thus
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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

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.
Pradeep Kumar Xplorer

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 18:24:45 -0400

> I dont accept your answer. WWW and software has evolved with  Artificial intelligence
> 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.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 00:20:53 -0600

> dealing with these drafts.

IN ANDROID it takes more intelligence for a user and ability to make a  
phone call
than a basic phone. You have to know how to use Android and tap on the
phone app and then dial your number. Similarily httpi:// is a user  
interface switch
that makes browsing more interesting. It is for this purpose of making  
WWW interesting google, facebook and twitter companies exist now. Are  
you asking me to write a detailed design at the project proposal stage?.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 07:24:13 -0600

See my comments at the end
Quoting [email-masked]:

> 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/
>
I have downloaded and experimented Highlight to Search Google chrome extension
on the text i Created http://www.pradeepkumarxplorer.com/YogaSequence.txt.
Its not really the same as httpi
It does search in one application google.com. What if Yahoo provides  
better search result.
There's no way for User profiling. I am someone being a man prefering to see
only woman models in youtube or images quoting as an example. I am  
saying its difficult for an ordinary user as opposed to an engineer to  
know about extensions and install. Its against the guideline of  
keeping clients thin as possible. As a Usability evaluator, i would  
say instead of one click, its now two to three clicks and it does not  
do the choosing for me.Computer / WWW can chose first and then allow  
WWW user to ReSearch if needed.I am saying software used by Highlight  
to search should be reused in httpi code in server side if its the  
correct thing to do but it uses only google.Just typing httpi should  
give WWW user best of all extensions available and more.I would say  
enable intelligent browsing menu in Browser should lead to URL being  
prefixed by httpi or the user can type httpi. What you are saying is  
work is already 90 percent done
but scattered in fez dozen software that should be consolidated into one place
good principles of software engineering.
Pluggable intelligent profiles could be used in server side in httpi://
Is anyone aware of any AI mailing list that's appropriate that can be  
included for their opinion?
Pradeep Kumar Xplorer

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2018 07:35:32 -0600

In addition it spawning a different browser for each search.  
Inefficient implementation that can crash thin clients.

> saying its difficult for an ordinary user as opposed to an engineer  
> to know about extensions and install. Its against the guideline of  
> say instead of one click, its now two to three clicks and it does  
> not do the choosing for me.Computer / WWW can chose first and then  
> allow WWW user to ReSearch if needed.I am saying software used by  
> Highlight to search should be reused in httpi code in server side if  
> its the correct thing to do but it uses only google.Just typing  
> httpi should give WWW user best of all extensions available and  
> more.I would say enable intelligent browsing menu in Browser should  
> lead to URL being prefixed by httpi or the user can type httpi. What  
> you are saying is work is already 90 percent done
> Is anyone aware of any AI mailing list that's appropriate that can  
> be included for their opinion?
> Pradeep Kumar Xplorer