Keith, I am curious why you need these features. Ciao Hannes -----Original Message----- From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Keith Moore Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 7:14 PM To: ietf@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Regarding "Call for Community Feedback: Retiring IETF FTP Service" On 11/25/20 11:26 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > For me the question is whether we need to provide multiple protocols > for making our documents available to others. > I am sure the 3GPP can fetch our RFCs also via HTTPS in 2020. > I find these handwaving arguments unhelpful in the extreme as they fail to consider the actual issues with using HTTPS instead of FTP. Vanilla HTTP provides no reliable way to list the documents in a folder. (like FTP XLST or WebDAV PROPFIND) Vanilla HTTP also provides no reliable way to distinguish a directory from an ordinary file from a symlink, and there are symlinks in the RFC repository. Even if we were to support WebDAV, tor me the question is whether we should break a stable protocol that has worked for decades and is very widely supported in clients, in favor of something new. Keith (I will acknowledge the NAT issue with FTP, though I think that PASV mode in FTP should still work. What I don't know is whether there are ALGs or other interception proxies out there that break all FTP even when it uses passive mode. It may be that the best feature of TLS for this kind of retrieval of non-sensitive information, is that it thwarts most interception proxies.) IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
