Frankly, I think you have both moved away from any discussion
of FTP access to IETF materials.
There are real issues to be considered about privacy for access
to public information, such as how to do it, when to do it, and
what to do if it fails. Personally, I'd prefer we not try to
decide such questions based on FTP access to RFCs. There are many
more interesting cases in which privacy is more obviously an
issue. And there are many more cases where the probability that
the user understands any of the issues is almost zero. It'd be
IMO foolish to try to draw a supposedly interesting conclusion
from cases where it doesn't matter and it's almost for sure that
the user knows the deal. It's kind of silly that it even came up
to be honest. So the effort devoted to this particular line of
argument is far better spent elsewhere. (And we needn't worry,
the subject will come up in a meaty manner I'm sure;-)
My suggestion is to forget about how 7258 might or might not
relate to the subject line here, and deal more with the subject
line itself. Let's save our energy for arguing about privacy
when accessing public information for discussing situations
where it matters much more and where users know less, both of
which are more typical and more important.
S.
On 04/04/15 01:52, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Fri, 3 Apr 2015, Joe Touch wrote:
So let's say that "network" is run by your government, and they don't
want to do that. You're OK with denying access?
You realise the irony that a large part of this mess is because of
recently discovered government behaviour? :P
I don't think that's appropriate. Our documents are not "only for those
who have non-monitored access".
I hope we are steadily moving moving towards a network that comes with
build-in privacy. I am not saying that the IETF needs to be the front
runner in that with their documents, although at some point in time
we should do what we preach.
But this has been an argument going back a decade and we won't get
agreement IETF-wide :)
Paul