Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Thu, 03 December 2020 03:15 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BC913A0964 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 19:15:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 fH6BzLWbbOJl for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 19:15:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb1-f179.google.com (mail-yb1-f179.google.com [209.85.219.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0FCB3A0957 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 19:15:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb1-f179.google.com with SMTP id v92so722267ybi.4 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 19:15:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CJs8Z8Z2/gStmSZWlYcUOgqW2HQBP72nD8NOFb0iL2g=; b=cd19SRHwXE3qXaFN6NEAQuiSmEoX5jP8RKhT56PbLVDWLsLPiM0d/96AfEkhMx+wZf i0+bftjFFYBzDlHLej9Z5Lg6ZSnsk5fxxnAS0O99jIuJs9pvYjiAWxtc+YjktRTVi0Ge u9UbEzkOADOAcXwCz7CNrc3x/q+9xS8FQxaE+z8wZx57zrxDP9mJAJEUQeli8717Wok5 j25tFGzW6sL06/OwFKntf/n58H7HIYq+EofZdszgEFO5EJbV/kTYWJSeFXbor46HGq9C 5EFvbMyLImpmjqIl0NkN4neKJ2mbpPkjeupdjmoRLS03h211T//Wdl3ag8UK1D+7XbnN AQmw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Pr+AdyxXL4ebIahfchjImW+Z86qykfnhi/UpQdbxq+jjyWIGd hdFfOzqqhDcAo5FhfhN5KStuqw9rsiwEYx2xY98=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxqosHt1ok0ORjwkT5ZXDduA7h1Lw5RmHP4tqwmQVna/3RpRZr4Zv0hbquxgDILy888kylKColY8SHEgWROLWA=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:1e43:: with SMTP id e64mr1787944ybe.273.1606965354716; Wed, 02 Dec 2020 19:15:54 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <AA1E0A8464BC45FB4FA44684@PSB> <2D63A357-E253-462C-864D-2BF96D3E2E18@tzi.org> <F4CD3381C5D0E24C91FC4A91@PSB> <20201201030759.GJ5364@mit.edu> <5720F933910C959C9278EBCF@PSB> <CAMm+LwgpcLxSdzgfJy2441hjNWP=Fui-f8Oq1bZB=2QdZeOUNQ@mail.gmail.com> <0c5a4935-f0b6-4b86-dc0e-3b4466bc09a4@nostrum.com> <F1FF9720-AA72-4B92-ABE7-6E0E875059BA@tzi.org> <16446.1606931808@localhost> <CAMm+Lwj51YLpwZLCxsVeg=6tBwaG845Kg4WN4hbA8Bv=pjjKrQ@mail.gmail.com> <C9D1281FC33DACED4FB385A3@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <C9D1281FC33DACED4FB385A3@PSB>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 22:15:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwgaGx9ukEw9FYdV+-smLgS1B3auYAMu7xNP5fM3g1kWEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic
To: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000022648f05b586c7bf"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/6qSstfIn24ywQl9LmD-t508wH-8>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 03:15:57 -0000

On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 3:57 PM John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:

>
>
> --On Wednesday, December 2, 2020 13:32 -0500 Phillip
> Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> wrote:
>
> >...
> > But even if every developer needs to use telnet for debugging
> > on a daily basis, that is still no reason for telnet to keep
> > its standards status. I would like to see us being more
> > aggressive in rendering old protocols obsolete so as to
> > encourage new ones. and to discourage continued use of
> > insecure protocols.
> >...
>
> Unless the rules changed when I wasn't looking (Scott should
> check me on this), the goal of IETF standards is to define
> conditions for interoperability
> among those who choose to use them.


https://www.ietf.org/about/

"The mission of the IETF is to make the Internet work better by producing
high quality, relevant technical documents that influence the way people
design, use, and manage the Internet."

Seems that the 'rules' have changed. As they should because we are no
longer serving an insular community of a few thousand academics. We have
been operating at planetary scale for decades now.


As for whether IoT device makers would stop using telnet if it was
deprecated, that is a good question. It is not one that I think we should
simply assume we know the answer to. The IETF would like people to move
from IPv4 to IPv6.

This is not the first time I have suggested the following strategy, but
everyone else seems to keep repeating themselves: If the IETF wants to
persuade people to stop using IPv4 and switch to IPv6 it needs to get into
the business of telling people what to use and what not to use.


Oh and as Stephen points out, we have been telling people not to use
insecure stuff for quite a while. We deprecate stuff in the security area
all the time even if people are still wanting to use it. There are people
would be happily using SSL/3.0 today if we hadn't made that really hard.


Oh and yes, I totally reject any set of rules I don't get a vote in
deciding.