IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: TLS access Re: Call for Community Feedback: Retiring IETF FTP Service

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Fri, 04 December 2020 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
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 20F753A0D87 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 07:19:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
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 B_dt4rkUt5y4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 07:19:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from taper.sei.cmu.edu (taper.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78AD63A0D7A for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 07:19:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from delp.sei.cmu.edu (delp.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.31]) by taper.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 0B4FJ3mc003454; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 10:19:03 -0500
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 taper.sei.cmu.edu 0B4FJ3mc003454
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cert.org; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1607095143; bh=0lITs8omxbwJVDJ6KQu67JlAMDnT8YbqNsAqkXixvTs=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=F/vvNX/3Ljt2JqYt7IpB8bS/dBRBlYshi3rnnKp7/V5jATNxOsEePbOwrx0+HHaqk +JIneFTrE61NsXuP4JgNXzHCOVh0lLAqx//2PpRlu6grzWafT40cxC/r7l/z+U6I3q uoNBIsHZUNy4BM2osRFDOIjCz+9VaGKTAe1d8foY=
Received: from MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu (morris.ad.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.46]) by delp.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 0B4FJ1BE032991; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 10:19:02 -0500
Received: from MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu (147.72.252.46) by MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu (147.72.252.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2106.2; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 10:19:01 -0500
Received: from MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([fe80::555b:9498:552e:d1bb]) by MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([fe80::555b:9498:552e:d1bb%13]) with mapi id 15.01.2106.002; Fri, 4 Dec 2020 10:19:01 -0500
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: TLS access Re: Call for Community Feedback: Retiring IETF FTP Service
Thread-Topic: TLS access Re: Call for Community Feedback: Retiring IETF FTP Service
Thread-Index: AdbKUMqHrpurekIOiEKqmE5VD8HfRw==
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2020 15:18:59 +0000
Message-ID: <8f49f6f057804c2e9bc199df5b7e7ec6@cert.org>
References: <af6ab231024c478bbd28bbec0f9c69c9@cert.org> <0D41F3FD-BA1F-4716-A165-4FE7529431A9@vigilsec.com> <D26DCBB6-3997-4A73-BB46-867B4FD79BD2@eggert.org> <27b80ed2-76fb-aee7-f22d-de56019e9aa9@nostrum.com> <a8bdd67a-13ea-4433-aa38-9cfd48ea28da@network-heretics.com> <0e875497-9986-a0d9-8354-3eac26b7f882@nostrum.com> <a02e15f2-34fb-4124-7ba0-c0ee0070b39f@network-heretics.com> <6a29096e-c76e-9bde-388c-bf411b235346@nostrum.com> <6ff3c8a8-57c9-a278-51ce-ce24fd2dfc0e@network-heretics.com> <01RS3W7DNPHA005PTU@mauve.mrochek.com> <7057e29825514008a06b749cb5c476f6@cert.org> <01RS3Y1AZ65A0085YQ@mauve.mrochek.com> <365930470c214fbd982da633c69b3b67@cert.org> <5172d442-6bb0-0e11-81fb-3da6e828166e@network-heretics.com> <c7afe761c0264c1daa533cec1895f1af@cert.org> <2088e835-86ef-1896-d307-fc4433ec3b65@network-heretics.com> <37e993ad382c423b90e11b4ca06a307e@cert.org> <f8e0951c-d655-31e4-63bc-357b1085b358@network-heretics.com> <5FB667B1.8000702@btconnect.com> <ee4a65123d7a4011be9b04b3408d1bea@cert.org> <1049FA76-DCB8-4735-8947-6D5CC0144C9F@akamai.com> <51819065ed01416181f85e333720d4d1@cert.org> <169D0283-F253-4E08-B50E-6E86BE333EBC@akamai.com> <46160C79-FAA7-40B1-A00A-0DAAF1470130@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <46160C79-FAA7-40B1-A00A-0DAAF1470130@vigilsec.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.202.131]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/LaV9fKJDOJPZNsSzWsvwFWCfX9g>
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: Fri, 04 Dec 2020 15:19:06 -0000

Hi!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
> Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2020 3:43 PM
> To: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
> Cc: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
> Subject: Re: TLS access Re: Call for Community Feedback: Retiring IETF FTP
> Service
> 
> 
> 
> > On Nov 20, 2020, at 12:10 PM, Salz, Rich
> <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Separate question: we were told for the newcomers slides to use
> >> rfc-editor.org for official RFC references.  How do we resolve that difference
> of views?
> >
> >>   I'm not knowledgeable enough to be the authority on this.
> >
> > Fair enough.  Let's chase this down tho and figure out what it should be.
> "There  can be only one" definitive source.
> 
> The definitive source is rfc-editor.org.  The files are copied from there for
> serving by ietf.org.

To contextualize access to this non-authoritative data set via FTP, I've provided another chart to the "12 Days in the life of an IETF FTP server" at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JAXspeaMWFl8ML3hSezFSM0VsJsHI4uyDlQ2dHip8jo/edit#

Access to RFCs is 27% of all FTP traffic and represents 37% of all unique IP addresses.

This new chart in the "What information are the users requesting?" section provides a distribution of requests and IP address across the top level directories.  A few highlights:
* 64% of all requests are for either an I-D or RFC (or 60% of all unique IP addresses, using no aggregation)
* the next most popular category (28%) is /ietf which contains historic charter and minute information of WGs; most of the usage is syncing the directory
* all other directories constitute < 8% of usage
* multiple top-level directories (4) had only a single IP address access it in the sample period

Regards,
Roman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email