[Tools-discuss] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Fwd: Brief outage for the RPC infrastructure tomorrow (15May)

John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> Thu, 16 May 2024 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <john-ietf@jck.com>
X-Original-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tools-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17EDEC14F683; Thu, 16 May 2024 13:46:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xfQRMq_Q0TDw; Thu, 16 May 2024 13:46:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bsa2.jck.com (bsa2.jck.com [70.88.254.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BF48C14F686; Thu, 16 May 2024 13:46:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [198.252.137.10] (helo=PSB) by bsa2.jck.com with esmtp (Exim 4.82 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <john-ietf@jck.com>) id 1s7hzY-0004Aw-Aw; Thu, 16 May 2024 16:46:20 -0400
Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 16:46:14 -0400
From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>
To: Jean Mahoney <jmahoney@amsl.com>, "Livingood, Jason" <jason_livingood=40comcast.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, tools-discuss <tools-discuss@ietf.org>, Jay Daley <jay@staff.ietf.org>
Message-ID: <89C015B4C0C5332CA2BA9804@PSB>
In-Reply-To: <1191a1d4-7011-490d-b02e-1f7c6cb21136@amsl.com>
References: <8dac60d8-6845-47aa-83c5-c113c30b6000@nostrum.com> <7f20db7c-fbd6-4b94-a7fd-07805b0d69e0@nostrum.com> <CF619D24477ABD0762BAC91D@PSB> <debba2c7-7fd5-467c-9734-0c0dca34ed42@nostrum.com> <A3865504-5F56-41DB-84A4-677A79101A50@comcast.com> <cd5573ae-4aff-46f3-b51f-5b466b372393@nostrum.com> <0ACDF645-F5FD-46D7-8BC9-CC4299662351@comcast.com> <1191a1d4-7011-490d-b02e-1f7c6cb21136@amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 198.252.137.10
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: john-ietf@jck.com
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on bsa2.jck.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Message-ID-Hash: 47U4IYF7LBHFIRPKBUU234I36C37U2NS
X-Message-ID-Hash: 47U4IYF7LBHFIRPKBUU234I36C37U2NS
X-MailFrom: john-ietf@jck.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tools-discuss.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [Tools-discuss] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re: Fwd: Brief outage for the RPC infrastructure tomorrow (15May)
List-Id: IETF Tools Discussion <tools-discuss.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tools-discuss/E0dSZrB02TPl4EHBKAnuuFh4_TQ>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tools-discuss>
List-Help: <mailto:tools-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:tools-discuss-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:tools-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:tools-discuss-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:tools-discuss-leave@ietf.org>


--On Thursday, May 16, 2024 12:53 -0500 Jean Mahoney
<jmahoney@amsl.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> On 5/16/24 12:24 PM, Livingood, Jason wrote:
>>>> I thought the IETF stopped supporting FTP interfaces to IETF
>>>> content a few years ago?
>>> The IETF did, yes - see RFC 9141.
>>> The RFC Editor has not made a similar change.
>> 
>> No time like the present to align the RFCE site then! ;-)
> 
> [JM] The RPC is not currently planning to turn off FTP. We would
> seek more community feedback before making such a decision.

Jason,

Let me try to briefly provide a preview of some of that community
feedback.

Perhaps we have reached the point that stability of RFCs and
references to them by both IETF documents and ones not in any sense
under "our" control is no longer considered important --not just by
the IETF community but by other communities who reference RFCs, often
with our encouragement.  "The documents are out there, we have just
put them where the instructions we've given for a half-century about
accessing them don't work any more" might not be considered a
satisfactory answer.    Such a decision and its effects might raise
some significant credibility issues about the IETF and its work in
some communities including ones concerned with legal actions and
precedents, contracts requiring compliance, etc.   

I imagine we could figure out ways to publicize the changes we are
making and why to sufficiently to mitigate those problems.  However,
I strongly suspect that reaching agreement about how (or if) to
handle that might make some of the issues that RSWG has struggled
with look like a walk in the park and that the administrative and
technical work that would be required as a result would exceed the
costs of maintaining an FTP server into the next century.

Of course, if your comment stems from a belief that FTP is obsolete,
a good start on that process by moving RFC 959 and the rest of STD 9
to historic.  I look forward to your I-D  :-).

best,
   john