On 06/04/15 15:36, Ned Freed wrote: > Maybe Stephen is conflating things, but I'm not, and I don't think most other > people on this thread are. Actually, I think you and others are, as per my previous post. If you want to debate privacy issues I think you ought start another thread on that. This one is about FTP where we mostly seem to agree that turning it off carefully might be right. I'd also note that those who prefer that the FTP service not be turned off may be being drowned out by the unstructured privacy side-show. My point is only that if we want to debate the appropriate mechanisms to put in place to protect the privacy of access to public IETF information, then let's not do that based on the FTP corner case, but by considering the general question. And regardless of what those who don't read the words written might think or imply, I have not argued here or ever for requiring all accesses to IETF information to be encrypted. But the pattern of seeing exaggerated claims as to what the "other" side is saying is one that we also saw in the 7258 last call. I just think repeating those canards again is pointless. S.