Hi, On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 1:02 PM John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. It does have sftp :-) Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx > R's, > John
