Hi Keith! > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Keith Moore > Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 11:55 PM > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Call for Community Feedback: Retiring IETF FTP Service > > On 11/25/20 11:30 PM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > 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. > > I'm probably ok with that also... as long as _that_ ftp server doesn't go away > anytime soon or without a good reason. To me it's more important that the > service exist than that it be run by IETF. (especially since the IETF server is being > run so poorly) As I just noted to John (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/FDhwYSxK0WSV0cdwf2aZiPfMQbI/), I want to be crystal clear on positions -- have you moved from "opposed" to "no objection contingent on continued operations of an alternative ftp source such as ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org";? Unlike John, we had discussed a broad array of content, so I also want to point out that the ftp.rfc-editor.org site has different content that ftp.ietf.org -- RFCs and I-Ds are there. However, for example, the mailing list archives and charters are NOT on the rfc-editor site. > Maybe just change the DNS for ftp.ietf.org to a CNAME that points to it? When considering what do if the ftp.ietf.org were to be deprecated, the proposal suggested as few things related to handling document pointers and explicitly turning it off (i.e., no service on that port or resolution of that name). A few parties (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/XFJOyi9a8KsrF4vmBAghb0Zo3mo/, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/SZBuNoGOiSajpsvurZ9hQuiNINc/, https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/-nZbFI-D1bp-o-LYGJNA_U1k9fQ/) suggested something less dramatic by putting in a pointer-like README file as the sole content. Is your position that you would preferred to instead CNAME ftp.ietf.org to ftp.rfc-editor.org instead? I ask because the directory layout from ftp.ietf.org and ftp-rfc.editor.org is NOT the same. My question is which seems better, when you go to ftp.iett.org and the directory you expect is not there, but you find a README on where to go; OR you are redirected to another server which has the content, but no hint on where to go (although it might be clear from the presented directories) Regards, Roman > Keith >
