> 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. Nonsense. The post I originally responded to was specific on the topic of driving things towards encryption everywhere. And since discontinuance of FTP as an access mechanism can be seen in furtherance of that goal, it's quite clear there's substantial overlap. > If you want to debate privacy issues I think you ought start another thread > on that. If I thought that was the right thing to do I would have done it. > This one is about FTP where we mostly seem to agree that > turning it off carefully might be right. I never said that. What I did say is that I presently have no opinion on the matter. And that's because I do not have sufficient data to evaluate the cost and benefits of phasing out the service. > 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 I quite simply disagree with this approach. I think FTP provides an interesting test case and context under which to consider the more 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. I never said you had. > 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. You might want to reread what you wrote here and think for a minute about just how dismissive and condesending it sounds to someone who was on the "other" side of that debate. Ned