On 11/26/20 9:19 AM, Roman Danyliw wrote:
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 asftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org";?
You didn't ask me, but that's my position. I won't insist that IETF host the service, but I do think it needs to continue to exist, at least until there's been time to put up and test and transition to something that provides similar services but works better (perhaps webdav).
My fallback position was to set up such a service myself, but even for such a simple service that's a big commitment if the service is going to be useful in the long-term, and I'm not already in the business of running public-facing servers. (OTOH, if AWS's FTP hosting supported public access, I would have already set up such a service.) But if the rfc editor is going to continue to maintain their FTP server, that's sufficient, particularly when it is now clear that IETF management would really resent maintaining it.
More broadly, this conversation has convinced me that IETF cannot be relied on to provide the tools that IETF participants need, and in fact that IETF management has become hostile to participation in IETF by some kinds of people. So if IETF is going to continue to be a viable consensus-based standards-making organization, either the management needs to do a significant about-face in its attitude toward participation, or IETF participants need to take on the burden of providing those tools.
Keith
