Hi John! > -----Original Message----- > From: Roman Danyliw > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 12:19 PM > To: 'John C Klensin' <john-ietf@xxxxxxx>; Scott O. Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx>; > ietf@xxxxxxxx > Cc: iesg@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: Call for Community Feedback: Retiring IETF FTP Service > > Hi John! > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of John C Klensin > > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 8:02 AM > > To: Scott O. Bradner <sob@xxxxxxxxx>; ietf@xxxxxxxx > > Cc: iesg@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: Call for Community Feedback: Retiring IETF FTP Service > > > > +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? > > To be clear, the proposal is completely reductive -- spinning down FTP. The > posture of HTTP vs. HTTPs is outside the scope of this proposal and would be a > separate community discussion to change that (and I'm not aware of this being > under consideration). I was privately reminded of a particular nuance that I wanted to make note of publicly -- IETF web properties (www.ietf.org, datracker.ietf.org, etc.) are all already HTTPS only, and has been the case for several years. Regards, Roman
