Re: Call for Community Feedback: Retiring IETF FTP Service

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Mon, 16 November 2020 20:04 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 E52D63A0138 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 12:04:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, 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=cs.tcd.ie
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 2POv5AVrtNKR for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 12:04:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03D423A0115 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 12:04:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id D97DABE7B; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 20:04:44 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7fjLvkJdSf5q; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 20:04:43 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.244.2.119] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1B77DBE79; Mon, 16 Nov 2020 20:04:43 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1605557083; bh=LDnMi3Qui7vIR2frm6RegiY3nj5DiO4jYPtT95TnsRs=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=KLOwZJpp0UuOfZHh5yLVIzkRz0gjRHfHno1Hb3VzZCkewOJGidEXD6DLCw+qknRFT bExshLZR2+jLSgWst8UQPrGoes9I9FtcTKwCT2jjz+Q+3F4vO0o3fZ6CuPeWujpbT2 Odl3jpyhYohD2UNtvg0kdW9UZ9TziAjpQRvRSlfU=
Subject: Re: Call for Community Feedback: Retiring IETF FTP Service
To: Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Cc: IETF <ietf@ietf.org>
References: <af6ab231024c478bbd28bbec0f9c69c9@cert.org> <0D41F3FD-BA1F-4716-A165-4FE7529431A9@vigilsec.com> <37c218db-0373-879b-1b68-01e50e4cc34b@network-heretics.com> <CAKq15vfvwCe384i4cH-Z-anc9SMHwbsXDBzoEwX19CfO0C3kFw@mail.gmail.com> <545b914c-850c-73ba-f646-9bfa6511a494@network-heretics.com> <5D014B74-6D30-409C-A8B9-A4D6926D1BA1@akamai.com> <2652e7a6-8bf3-8b67-548a-bfe847fc0fe0@network-heretics.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <4fb9e65c-c21b-cbc6-8b7f-4082e337ed8c@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 20:04:42 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.3.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2652e7a6-8bf3-8b67-548a-bfe847fc0fe0@network-heretics.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="psFSIaDuRDc2qZhSAMnB9WROsVin7hqmO"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/qVOlNLwwT7SFbbTEILROJVJukfY>
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: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 20:04:49 -0000

Hiya,

On 16/11/2020 16:52, Keith Moore wrote:
> On 11/16/20 11:47 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> 
>> There's a counter-movement among many that the IETF should not be 
>> building bespoke tools.  This seems, most notably, to come up in 
>> meetecho v other videoconf systems.
> 
> Yeah, I emphatically oppose that counter-movement.    As far as I can 
> tell it's basically an effort to make IETF less functional, less able to 
> serve its purpose.

I don't think impugning people's motives is fair there,
and asserting that they are making "an effort to make
IETF less functional" commits that sin IMO.

IIUC there are a bunch of people who think the IETF would
be better run if we used COTS products and services much
more. I don't tend to agree with that (being unfond of e.g.,
the privacy-loss and lack-of-control that I think would
ensue), but I do think those people are well-intentioned.

S.

> 
>