On 11/18/20 11:04 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Am 18.11.2020 um 23:53 schrieb Keith Moore:
...
3. WebDAV appears to be a functional equivalent to FTP for this
purpose. However, replacing FTP with WebDAV looks like replacing a
mature and well-established protocol that enjoys very widespread client
support, with a less mature, less widely-supported, and even more
baroque protocol than FTP, in addition to being disruptive. Though it
would permit encryption, so that's a plus for WebDAV.
"more baroque"? Can you elaborate?
The number of features WebDAV tries to support makes FTP look simple,
especially when using it for the purpose of granting file-level access
to a read-only repository.
4. I would be surprised if the opex associated with WebDAV were actually
less than running an FTP server, but it's possible.
...
For some http servers, WebDAV support comes as module you just need to
enable. So no additional server at all.
Well, if you're running your own servers, opex isn't a linear multiple
of the number of servers you have to run.
(Though admittedly if you're outsourcing those servers to a CDN, as IETF
apparently is with www.ietf.org, that depends on the CDN's charging
model. I can understand why IETF would use a CDN - it definitely helps
manage some kinds of operational risk - though it might be overkill for
an FTP server that could probably run reasonably well on a Raspberry Pi 4.)
Keith
