In article <60648e0e-55d6-86a1-e40f-342133110f9d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> you write: >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. This makes no sense. What computers do you believe that people use in 2020 that support FTP but not rsync? And if that were true, why do we see orders of magnitude more rsync traffic than FTP? I use a Mac laptop which, based on what I've seen at IETF meetings, is a fairly popular choice. It has rsync as part of the base system, and no FTP client other than as part of curl, which of course also supports http and https. R's, John
