Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic
Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com> Thu, 03 December 2020 00:32 UTC
Return-Path: <sob@sobco.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 A92383A0115 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 16:32:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, 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 UTfEe326mmUG for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 16:32:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sobco.sobco.com (unknown [136.248.127.164]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7EA23A0062 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 16:32:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9351C48A4197; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 19:32:41 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sobco.com
Received: from sobco.sobco.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sobco.sobco.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MOMWx193OJcx; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 19:32:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [192.168.50.51] (173-166-5-67-newengland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.166.5.67]) by sobco.sobco.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A0FD448A4179; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 19:32:34 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Subject: Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic
From: Scott Bradner <sob@sobco.com>
In-Reply-To: <08035677-a35e-45ed-39e9-b01df6d01010@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 19:32:33 -0500
Cc: "John C. Klensin" <john-ietf@jck.com>, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FEAD3A30-9573-4C65-AB91-B243E25CCE69@sobco.com>
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> <6B1BC8E3-913D-4683-A463-AD6099103749@sobco.com> <08035677-a35e-45ed-39e9-b01df6d01010@cs.tcd.ie>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/MuiAO78j2nqiOfmVNHuumRcHRBU>
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 00:32:45 -0000
any prediction son what % of future IoT implementations would drop telnet if the IETF moves the spec to historic? Scott > On Dec 2, 2020, at 6:28 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > > > Hiya, > > On 02/12/2020 23:19, Scott O. Bradner wrote: >> I fully agree with John >> I see no justification to move telnet &/or FTP to historic since they are in use (even if >> some people would rather that not be the case) and neither presents a clear danger >> to the proper functioning of the Internet > > I gotta wonder about that last. Wouldn't it be credible to > argue that telnet is in fact a real danger, if one looks at > all the CVEs that've reported on ports with admin/admin > access? I'm not sure if it'd be the right thing to do, but > I do think one can credibly argue that deprecating telnet > might be worthwhile. > > Cheers, > S. > >> Scott >>> On 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. Whether incorporated into >>> the same document or separate, "you should use this in >>> preference to anything else" or "everyone who wants to part of >>> the Internet should support this" statements are matters for >>> Applicability Statements and recommendation levels, not >>> standards status. We should not lose sight of the importance of >>> that distinction, especially because we have had recent working >>> groups developing protocols for standardization that are of use >>> to only a tiny fraction of the Internet's users. >>> >>> Historically (sic) we have moved standards track protocols, >>> especially Internet Standards, to Historic only when no one is >>> using them and expecting implementations to interoperate (see >>> RFC 4450 for a partial explanation), with, e.g., the ARPANET >>> Host-IMP protocol as a rather good example. We have sometimes >>> moved specifications whose use was already formally deprecated >>> (even if there was not a spec that said "Not Recommended" as >>> 2026 anticipated) to Historic for extra emphasis. Moving a >>> document to Historic without doing anything else is nothing more >>> than a statement by the IETF that the specification is of no >>> further use as a specification. 2026 says "superseded by a more >>> recent specification or is for any other reason considered to be >>> obsolete" but that is the _specification_ not the protocol or >>> its usability. As long as efforts to discontinue FTP support >>> in a particular context or mere questions about adding a >>> response code or features that might improve contemporary >>> applicability call forth as much impassioned debate as we have >>> seen recently, whatever that spec is, it is not Historic. >>> >>> Keep in mind that the IETF's Standards are voluntary and that, >>> just as we cannot make anyone implement or use a Standard as we >>> intend and prefer, we cannot prevent someone from using one of >>> our specifications just because we have attached a term of shame >>> to it. If we don't want someone to use a spec, we need to >>> explain why in a way that is persuasive to them. >>> >>> So, if I understand correctly what you are actually trying to >>> do, by all means write a spec explaining why no right-minded >>> person would used FTP and/or Telnet and updating RFC 1123 and >>> 765 and/or 854 to explicitly identify them as "Not Recommended". >>> Moving it (and Telnet) to Historic without making that effort >>> and while they are still in active use in parts of the Internet >>> and for some purposes would only serve the purpose of further >>> damaging the IETF's credibility. And, if your recommended >>> replacements are not, themselves, IETF Standards, then, IMO, the >>> damage to credibility would be even greater. >>> >>> I will save my opinion for what should be done with such a >>> spec/proposal if it is written and posted for that event. >>> >>> best, >>> john >>> >>> > <OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc>
- Two FTP issues John C Klensin
- Re: Two FTP issues Carsten Bormann
- Re: Two FTP issues John C Klensin
- Re: Two FTP issues Carsten Bormann
- Re: Two FTP issues John C Klensin
- Re: Two FTP issues Carsten Bormann
- Re: Two FTP issues John C Klensin
- Re: Two FTP issues Theodore Y. Ts'o
- Re: Two FTP issues Joseph Touch
- Re: Two FTP issues Salz, Rich
- Re: Two FTP issues Larry Masinter
- Re: Two non-FTP issues John Levine
- Re: Two non-FTP issues Keith Moore
- Re: Two FTP issues John C Klensin
- Telnet and FTP to Historic Phillip Hallam-Baker
- MIME sniffing Keith Moore
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Keith Moore
- Re: MIME sniffing Julian Reschke
- Re: MIME sniffing Keith Moore
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Adam Roach
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Carsten Bormann
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Michael Richardson
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Carsten Bormann
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Michael Thomas
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic John C Klensin
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Stephen Farrell
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Mark Andrews
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Stephen Farrell
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Scott Bradner
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Michael Richardson
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Michael Richardson
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Stephen Farrell
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Jared Mauch
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Mark Andrews
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic John Levine
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic John C Klensin
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Theodore Y. Ts'o
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Christian Huitema
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Joe Touch
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Christian Huitema
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Christian de Larrinaga
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Masataka Ohta
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Masataka Ohta
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Dave Cridland
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Nick Hilliard
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Masataka Ohta
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Masataka Ohta
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic IETF Sergeant at Arms
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Christian de Larrinaga
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Michael Richardson
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Masataka Ohta
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Masataka Ohta
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Joe Touch
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Keith Moore
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Adam Roach
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Christian Huitema
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Keith Moore
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Telnet and FTP to Historic Keith Moore