Re: Call for Community Feedback: Retiring IETF FTP Service

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 30 November 2020 13:25 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.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 E5B143A0AB8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 05:25:06 -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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 eNXOFiX6BcQs for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 05:25:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77DF73A0A94 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 05:25:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.120] (p548dca87.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.202.135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Cl5Z65jnwzySZ; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 14:25:02 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
Subject: Re: Call for Community Feedback: Retiring IETF FTP Service
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <5FC4E79F.5090207@btconnect.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 14:25:02 +0100
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 628435502.407594-6ac2b0c60df84059e6af51f7e41e6f5e
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AF1C8668-041D-425B-8350-0B70D3BE76D0@tzi.org>
References: <af6ab231024c478bbd28bbec0f9c69c9@cert.org> <5FC24768.2020603@btconnect.com> <e170d248-8559-a64b-eaa0-620d78746f1c@gmx.de> <69878065-D4F0-438F-A57F-B45F052CA94F@akamai.com> <5FC4E79F.5090207@btconnect.com>
To: tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/rtvpQbRc5Dz-Ui7QYhB6Husv7r8>
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, 30 Nov 2020 13:25:07 -0000

On 2020-11-30, at 13:37, tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com> wrote:
> 
> not respecting the ASCII control characters such as I got last week when an RFC was turned into a stream without formatting

This is getting a bit confused.

Recent RFCs (from RFC 8650 on) have not been ASCII, even in the plain-text version.
Even if the author’s text was ASCII-only Unicode, upon publishing a UTF-8 BOM is added.
(I think that is wrong, but that is a separate discussion, and I’m obviously in the rough here.)

Also, recent RFCs in plain-text version have not been paginated, which maybe what you call a “stream”.
(I also think that is suboptimal, but that is yet another discussion again.)

None if this is dependent on the mode of access.

Note that Web browsers might be adding BOMs or might be changing their behavior based on the presence of a BOM, which may be part of the unexplained effects you might be seeing.  Preferably, don’t use Web browsers or other sources of intelligent behavior.

Grüße, Carsten