Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 11:41:46AM -0700, ned+ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: > > On 06/04/15 18:45, Ned Freed wrote: > > >> 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. > > > Really? I honestly don't get why FTP is at all "interesting" from > > the privacy of access POV. Can you explain? > > It's interesting precisely because it's one of the services we use to provide > access to our content and it's one that is intrisicly hostile to privacy. you, the proverbial you - as the user, are free to choose a different service - others are provided. i dont care if whomever may know that I downloaded some rfc. others may. find less interest in forcing your religion^Wchoice upon potential users and more in delivering choice and content. > Even more interesting is how its presence cuts both ways: As long as we have FTP > access, we cannot claim to have secure-only access (which makes some people > happy and others unhappy). But at the same time this can be used as an argument > justifying tightening up or even eliminating non-secure access via other > protocols. for most users, it does not require secure access.