Re: Call for Community Feedback: Retiring IETF FTP Service

Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com> Thu, 26 November 2020 14:45 UTC

Return-Path: <moore@network-heretics.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 B7A403A12BB for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 06:45:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com
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 0pq6FfTXKFtj for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 06:45:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from out5-smtp.messagingengine.com (out5-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07AEA3A12C8 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 06:45:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4943B5C0041 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 09:45:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 26 Nov 2020 09:45:16 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=G7eOa6yEyHZR4sKOI7R/e8Iinq29LRRZEq9bWjla3 jY=; b=mBilXsWjtOQGrjZWIxuHqXUc38M6zFFVFAW4JDmnFUrH5h3B8LBKQe9ni NViQr9lZma88Q2+AFC8KbmRCOjc/JqlCNnhUYFuHfPzO4z0DK71q4snk53m7UU/V XNofeNRZW6qtMtePUWAE0IQsTolMtAjZbKEszvpS1XSy2+fSFgDA8jpPePpa7Ped SMVq3C/1SNRj7CPzdU7HlQMeNIysOu4wOv5FOHo40Jn2+byccT7gNduIOvJ64c4U A5cdZ6l/3ZX9LMnag5OrXuIFo9lqAHeHzCD3GtUYT4qdYyRJyDNO/YcgtsL54hIP Oi65OBx2ucVGHGuqqls61nYMypz9w==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:e7-_XxxYE6-9gOIIuGjMjh7lcCKUKPmacdRCf6aDxfSfPytZubshBw> <xme:e7-_XxTIK7ZlX6s5TSUypP2s_wcjV9ueLBQbE93QabPoO6Jn9mxwy1CYl70h--_ky HxwZCTWlfsM2A>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrudehvddgieekucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtke ertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefmvghithhhucfoohhorhgvuceomhhoohhrvgesnhgvthif ohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeffuedugeefie eigedtieffhefhjefhvddtieekueekiedtvdeggfeigeffieegtdenucffohhmrghinhep ihgvthhfrdhorhhgpdhrfhgtqdgvughithhorhdrohhrghenucfkphepuddtkedrvddvud drudektddrudehnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhf rhhomhepmhhoohhrvgesnhgvthifohhrkhdqhhgvrhgvthhitghsrdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:e7-_X7WANqiFfHvc1ycxLscWbilMtyZOndqyp1AdJ0T43W_RVSdQmQ> <xmx:e7-_XzjXlniGVAQnwztXETqjek_GGD3TZ7kIkX2MSZdOk_zzvX6VYw> <xmx:e7-_XzC3eREsDgBgouLvG10qiRHQpr03R7qTHxU_3lTPzUphBFcBtA> <xmx:fL-_X3y9rgzXjkDDAXn1V2wrV6AHsUHO8C6qcO0n3Rise9WsTcjHTw>
Received: from [192.168.1.85] (108-221-180-15.lightspeed.knvltn.sbcglobal.net [108.221.180.15]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 9687E3064AAF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Nov 2020 09:45:15 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Call for Community Feedback: Retiring IETF FTP Service
To: ietf@ietf.org
References: <af6ab231024c478bbd28bbec0f9c69c9@cert.org> <b993def4eb0140698042781e0b790af0@cert.org> <50D6883540A39384617ABEBF@PSB> <725c1a373fbc77e5@orthanc.ca> <b2b172a2d793499bb4da094f1cceb105@cert.org> <36C92F732011DE95088B8427@PSB> <ef036e20609b4388aeb07d8f5fd5caae@cert.org>
From: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Message-ID: <6dd1bed8-9451-955b-5fb4-3fab2787d255@network-heretics.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 09:45:14 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ef036e20609b4388aeb07d8f5fd5caae@cert.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NIvzm6Au1jVKAA1Bxqxlq1CkoM0>
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, 26 Nov 2020 14:45:19 -0000

On 11/26/20 9:19 AM, Roman Danyliw wrote:

> Since we talked exchanged notes on being clear on positions (see:https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/GXzI5CRCVLhfKzFR4s5BwKmjhio/), am I correct in interpreting that you have moved from "opposed" to "no objection contingent on continued operations of an alternative ftp source such asftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org"?

You didn't ask me, but that's my position.  I won't insist that IETF 
host the service, but I do think it needs to continue to exist, at least 
until there's been time to put up and test and transition to something 
that provides similar services but works better (perhaps webdav).

My fallback position was to set up such a service myself, but even for 
such a simple service that's a big commitment if the service is going to 
be useful in the long-term, and I'm not already in the business of 
running public-facing servers. (OTOH, if AWS's FTP hosting supported 
public access, I would have already set up such a service.)   But if the 
rfc editor is going to continue to maintain their FTP server, that's 
sufficient, particularly when it is now clear that IETF management would 
really resent maintaining it.

More broadly, this conversation has convinced me that IETF cannot be 
relied on to provide the tools that IETF participants need, and in fact 
that IETF management has become hostile to participation in IETF by some 
kinds of people.   So if IETF is going to continue to be a viable 
consensus-based standards-making organization, either the management 
needs to do a significant about-face in its attitude toward 
participation, or IETF participants need to take on the burden of 
providing those tools.

Keith