Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-yevstifeyev-ftp-uri-scheme-04.txt

Frank Ellermann <> Fri, 08 July 2011 20:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 527F021F8CE1 for <>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 13:05:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.949
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, FROM_LOCAL_NOVOWEL=0.5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7hL-s-T04PYE for <>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 13:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9FC421F8CDD for <>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 13:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk5 with SMTP id 5so2307734pzk.31 for <>; Fri, 08 Jul 2011 13:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=DsaJidRRBWuxwKRy5mjYr6ltsD5gvoOHtVGwdz70gA4=; b=LxRGJ6I2Z2C04IfyYEaZUnuO3+4Jqv/+qkz1Tvn+6GLpZN8hBocXV+gatgnkzpDGcE cI1FZVKfPjyNYQ+S3yAVPCgWAJDmZcbUg2kPG+OiQ2JBc4HmDWFTvBe8JBSkuju7sUkP P0vwUeh9AWSX1Y628jg7VsEVDHEtOfzOJN7BE=
Received: by with SMTP id s39mr492097wfc.237.1310155514484; Fri, 08 Jul 2011 13:05:14 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 13:04:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Frank Ellermann <>
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 22:04:54 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: SM <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: URI <>, Apps-discuss list <>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-yevstifeyev-ftp-uri-scheme-04.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2011 20:05:15 -0000

On 8 July 2011 19:57, SM <> wrote:

>| Providing an e-mail address is a courtesy that allows archive
>| site operators to get some idea of who is using their services.

> That's from FYI 24.

RFC 1635, vintage 1994.  Apparently something that should go the
way of the Dodo together with the long obsolete "netiquette RFC".

In this millennium security and privacy and i18n are IMO not
optional, it is not more the same internet as in 1994 (when I
was still mostly using FidoNet and Videotex, or rarely NetNews).

I vaguely recall that "privacy considerations" (in addition to
the existing "IANA" / "i18n" / "security" considerations) were
proposed, or was that a "privacy directorate"?

I'd like to have "privacy considerations" in all future I-Ds -
it could be merged with the "security considerations" or even
omitted as beside the point depending on the final RFC, but an
indication in I-Ds that the authors "considered privacy" like
"security" or "i18n" or "IANA" would be good.  If authors then
decide that this is bureaucratic nonsense to be ignored for
their purposes it worked as designed:  At least they spent the
milliseconds to think about it.