RE: Call for Community Feedback: Retiring IETF FTP Service

[Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]>]

Hi Scott!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Scott O. Bradner
> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 6:56 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Call for Community Feedback: Retiring IETF FTP Service
> 
> is there a compelling reason to stop a service that some people are using
> 
> the pdf says : "The operational complexity of running this service "
> 
> just what complexity is there once the service was set up (years ago)?

The complexity is having the "n+1" service to run.

> i.e., just how much does this service cost to run?
> 	(seems to me that it is likely that the effort to develop this plan was
> much more than just letting the service run)
> 
> yes, I run one of the scripts that use ftp to access IETF resources and it would be
> a significant pain to rewrite it since it is complicated script and I do not know 
> how to do some of its functions in other non-ftp ways
>
> I do seriously want to know how much it costs the IETF to run the ftp service

As far as I know, there are no "billable hours" kinds of numbers on what it takes to run FTP.  As noted in an earlier response, the underlying storage holding all IETF content is being refreshed.  Positive action is required to migrate all services which created a natural inflection point to consult the community on FTP based on the observed usage patterns.  It appears the using HTTP is overwhelming more popular (details in the proposal).  I acknowledge that this isn't your workflow and hear that you'd like the FTP service to continue to support your scripts.

You noted that your scripts perform functions that you don't know how to do in "non-ftp ways".  Can you clarify that use case/function more (offline ok too)?   In preparing the contingency plan, it appeared that using an HTTP API or rsync covered the known use cases.

Regards,
Roman


Roman

> Scott
> 
> 
> 
> > On Nov 9, 2020, at 9:23 PM, Roman Danyliw <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is seeking community input on
> retiring the IETF FTP service (ftp://ftp.ietf.org, ftp://ops.ietf.org, ftp://ietf.org).
> A review of this service has found that FTP appears to serve a very small
> community and HTTP has become the access mechanism of choice.  Given this
> shift in community usage, reducing the operational complexity of the overall
> IETF infrastructure seems to outweigh the very limited community served with
> FTP.
> >
> > In reviewing the additional impacts of such a service retirement, the
> dependencies on FTP have been assessed.  Additionally, it has been confirmed
> that all information currently reachable through FTP will continue to be
> available through other services (HTTP, RSYNC, IMAP).
> >
> > In consultation with the Tools team (Robert, Glen, Henrik, Russ, and Alexey),
> Communications team (Greg), affected SDO liaisons, IAB Chair, and LLC ED, a
> proposed retirement plan was developed and is available at:
> >
> > https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/Retiring_IETF_FTP_Service.pdf
> >
> > The IESG appreciates any input from the community on this proposal and will
> consider all input received by December 4, 2020 (to account for the upcoming
> IETF 109 and holidays).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Roman
> > (as the IESG Tools Liaison)
> >