On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 03:30:38PM -0500, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 12:00:16PM -0500, Keith Moore wrote:
> > I'm very opposed to this proposal.
>
> Likewise.
>
> > FTP is also a very stable interface, whereas as HTTP + HTML are both
> > hideously complex.???? Use of FTP as a remote file access protocol is very
> > widely supported.
>
> It is, and part of the reason for that is the stability you reference.
> Scripts that work tend to keep working for a very long time.
By now I think I also qualify as old timer, and yet I find the claim
that FTP is simple while HTTP is "complex" far from credible. If
anything, the reverse is actually true. With binary vs. text modes,
passive vs. active modes, separate control and data channels, FTP is
far from "simple". And HTML is not relevant to the discussion. The
content type is same (either plain text or HTML) regardless of the
transfer method.
> Another reason for keeping FTP around (that I haven't seen articulated
> in this thread; please forgive me if I missed it) is that having a second
> or third way to access information is extremely useful when things go
> very wrong. If that happens even once over the next 20 years then the
> tiny cost of keeping FTP running will be repaid in full very quickly.
This too I find not very credible. The IETF is not making money serving
files to high-paying customers who'll bolt to a competitor if some tight
SLA is not met. It is difficult to imagine content hosted by ietf.org
that is so critical, and also not available from multiple sources, that
we can't wait out a brief outage.
HTTP is now ubiquitous, and retiring FTP can I think be reasonably
justified given the reported light and declining usage.
--
Viktor.
