On 11/11/20 10:40 PM, Roman Danyliw wrote:
As noted in the proposal, ALL data is available at least two other ways (https://www.ietf.org/ietf-ftp or rsync). By request volume, HTTPS is massively preferred (FTP is 0.2% of HTTPS document traffic, and this is undercounting HTTPS usage) by the vast majority of users. If the bulk download semantics are desired, to include incremental updates with no code required, then rsync is the best choice. Do you have a user community in mind that can use FTP, but not HTTPS or rsync that we need to consider?
rsync is not nearly as widely supported as FTP. And while rsync works okay for mirroring, I've never seen it used for remote file access.
Really this proposal is a tremendously bad idea, and it should be withdrawn. Keith
