Re: Call for Community Feedback: Retiring IETF FTP Service

[Keith Moore <[e-mail]>]

On 11/18/20 11:04 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> Am 18.11.2020 um 23:53 schrieb Keith Moore:
>> ...
>>
>> 3. WebDAV appears to be a functional equivalent to FTP for this
>> purpose.   However, replacing FTP with WebDAV looks like replacing a
>> mature and well-established protocol that enjoys very widespread client
>> support, with a less mature, less widely-supported, and even more
>> baroque protocol than FTP, in addition to being disruptive. Though it
>> would permit encryption, so that's a plus for WebDAV.
>
> "more baroque"? Can you elaborate?

The number of features WebDAV tries to support makes FTP look simple, 
especially when using it for the purpose of granting file-level access 
to a read-only repository.

>>
>> 4. I would be surprised if the opex associated with WebDAV were actually
>> less than running an FTP server, but it's possible.
>> ...
>
> For some http servers, WebDAV support comes as module you just need to
> enable. So no additional server at all.

Well, if you're running your own servers, opex isn't a linear multiple 
of the number of servers you have to run.

(Though admittedly if you're outsourcing those servers to a CDN, as IETF 
apparently is with www.ietf.org, that depends on the CDN's charging 
model.  I can understand why IETF would use a CDN - it definitely helps 
manage some kinds of operational risk - though it might be overkill for 
an FTP server that could probably run reasonably well on a Raspberry Pi 4.)

Keith