On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 11:25:11AM -0500, Keith Moore wrote: > On 11/26/20 11:15 AM, John C Klensin wrote: > > > I would hope they would not be included in > > any future summary of why discontinuing FTP service or, better, > > explicitly disclaimed. For example and because of my concerns > > about actions others (including the LLC and/or RFC Editor > > Function) might decide to take based on an IETF/IESG decision, > > it seems to me to be very important that "our" reasons for > > whatever decisions we made be very clear and that the implied > > insults of those arguments should have no part of them. > > IMO the insults weaken the (already weak and poorly supported) arguments > for deprecating FTP, because they reveal a very evident prejudice on the > part of those making the insults. Agreed that the insults weaken the argument. > It should also be clear by now that IESG is not well-placed to decide > which tools people should be using. I continue to disagree with the phrasing here: the proposal at hand does not "decide what tools people should be using". It is an effort to gauge consensus in the IETF community as to what services should be offered by IETF infrastructure. The existing infrastructure (not under discussion for modification or removal) provides more than adequate facility for someone else to provide their own mirroring and services for accessing the content, so to say that the IESG is somehow going to decide that you shouldn't use FTP at all does not follow. If consensus is determined to be that the IETF should stop offering FTP access, it means just that: *the IETF* is not going to offer FTP service, but someone else is more than welcome to do so if they find value in it. > This is not their job, not what > they're chosen for, and a distraction from their main roles. Distraction from the main role, sure (but ietf@ is a recurring such distraction). Judging IETF consensus, though, is squarely in the job description and as such seems to be something that we are chosen for. -Ben
