+1
And, while I suspect my scripts are less complicated than
Scott's, I do have them and am dependent on them. So two
additional thoughts:
(i) I know the conventional wisdom in the IETF is to obsolete
HTTP in favor of HTTPS. However, if conversation is necessary,
conversion from FTP to simple, no negotiation HTTP is likely to
be lots easier the conversation to HTTPS, certificate handling,
etc. So, while the report seems to circle around this a bit, if
FTP is discontinued, will we be assured that plain HTTP access
will be available long-term rather than those who do convert
waking up one day and discovering that HTTP is being
discontinued because HTTPS is more virtuous?
(ii) Can we start evaluating these changes, not just in terms of
extra facilities that have to be maintained (and I agree with
Scott that, once the machinery is set up, the marginal costs of
maintaining FTP should be, well, marginal) but in terms of costs
to the community of discussing and making the conversion.
Except for those who actually have unlimited time or would not
be contributing to the IETF's technical work anyway and In
addition to the time taken up creating plans and reports like
this, please assume that every minute taking up considering a
plan like this, converting scripts (or even old habits), etc.,
is a minute that IETF technical, standards-producing, work isn't
getting done. Is it worth it for this case (or any particular
other one that might arise next)?
john
--On Tuesday, November 10, 2020 06:55 -0500 "Scott O. Bradner"
<sob@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> is there a compelling reason to stop a service that some
> people are using
>
> the pdf says : "The operational complexity of running this
> service "
>
> just what complexity is there once the service was set up
> (years ago)?
>
> i.e., just how much does this service cost to run?
> (seems to me that it is likely that the effort to develop
> this plan was much more than just letting the service run)
>
> yes, I run one of the scripts that use ftp to access IETF
> resources and it would be a significant pain to rewrite it
> since it is complicated script and I do not know how to do
> some of its functions in other non-ftp ways
>
> I do seriously want to know how much it costs the IETF to run
> the ftp service
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>> On Nov 9, 2020, at 9:23 PM, Roman Danyliw <rdd@xxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is seeking
>> community input on retiring the IETF FTP service
>> (ftp://ftp.ietf.org, ftp://ops.ietf.org, ftp://ietf.org). A
>> review of this service has found that FTP appears to serve a
>> very small community and HTTP has become the access mechanism
>> of choice. Given this shift in community usage, reducing the
>> operational complexity of the overall IETF infrastructure
>> seems to outweigh the very limited community served with FTP.
>>
>>
>> In reviewing the additional impacts of such a service
>> retirement, the dependencies on FTP have been assessed.
>> Additionally, it has been confirmed that all information
>> currently reachable through FTP will continue to be available
>> through other services (HTTP, RSYNC, IMAP).
>>
>> In consultation with the Tools team (Robert, Glen, Henrik,
>> Russ, and Alexey), Communications team (Greg), affected SDO
>> liaisons, IAB Chair, and LLC ED, a proposed retirement plan
>> was developed and is available at:
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/Retiring_IETF_FTP_Servic
>> e.pdf
>>
>> The IESG appreciates any input from the community on this
>> proposal and will consider all input received by December 4,
>> 2020 (to account for the upcoming IETF 109 and holidays).
>>
>> Regards,
>> Roman
>> (as the IESG Tools Liaison)
>>
>
