Hi John! > -----Original Message----- > From: John C Klensin <john-ietf@xxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 11:31 PM > To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@xxxxxxxx>; Lyndon Nerenberg <lyndon@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: Call for Community Feedback: Retiring IETF FTP Service > > > > --On Thursday, November 26, 2020 03:09 +0000 Roman Danyliw > <rdd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >... > > To have as a backup, there is also > > ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts against which I-Ds > >can be mirrored. > > Roman, > > I didn't know about that and, at least for me, that completely changes the > equation. If there is at least one IETF (or IETF LLC)-supported site that is kept > synchronized with the IETF I-D collection and offers FTP, I don't see any strong > reason why there needs to be access to the IETF repository on the IETF site. > Even for those who need to change scripts, changing one site and path for > another (either in human memory or in a > script) should not be a big deal and, IIR, IETF has moved things around often > enough that most FTP users have had to do that once or twice already. Since we talked exchanged notes on being clear on positions (see: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/GXzI5CRCVLhfKzFR4s5BwKmjhio/), am I correct in interpreting that you have moved from "opposed" to "no objection contingent on continued operations of an alternative ftp source such as ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org";? > On the other hand, if the LLC has to support, or fund AMS to support, FTP > access to a repository on the RFC Editor site/path, it seems that the case that > there are significant marginal costs for maintaining FTP access to the IETF > repository just got a little more dubious. I'm speaking for the IESG, so I (we) have no purview over contract. With that caveat and being completely on the outside, I will repeat what was mentioned earlier that operational complexity get reduced with fewer services to run. It also reduced attack surface (perhaps one was a little behind in updates or had a misconfiguration). Roman > thanks, > john > >
