ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: FTP Service Discontinuance Under Consideration; Input Requested

2015-04-04 12:42:48
This is not a contest, one is not more important than the other, it is a 
question of dependencies.  People's privacy on the Internet, yes hopefully 
built into the Internet's protocols, is dependent on a free, open, and 
accessible standards process.  In the name of privacy, you cannot lock up and  
limit access to, what at the same time in the name of privacy must be open and 
accessible.

However, this is irrelevant to the announcement and request for community 
comment.  I think it is appropriate to retire support for FTP as announced.  
There are newer more appropriate options supported and in dominant use, http 
and rsync.

Thanks.

On Apr 4, 2015, at 10:49, <l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk> 
<l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk> wrote:


If privacy is so important to the IETF, why are we all posting to this list 
using our real names?

Lloyd Wood
http://about.me/lloydwood

can we call the IETF chair "Number One"?
________________________________________
From: ietf <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> on behalf of 
ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com 
<ned+ietf(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com>
Sent: Sunday, 5 April 2015 12:12:20 AM
To: Joe Touch
Cc: Paul Wouters; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: FTP Service Discontinuance Under Consideration; Input Requested

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.

I don't disagree with "built in" privacy.

I disagree with "forced" privacy and I don't think that any "rough
consensus" document should force that upon any of us (especially one
with zero requirements language).

The key question here is simple:

     - does the RFC Editor have a reason to warrant
     mandatory privacy?

     - should mandatory privacy apply to the whole site,
     or should there be some content it doesn't care is tracked?

IMO, access to I-Ds and RFCs ought to be available even with tracking.

I completely agree with all of this. The IETF has led the way in providing
fully open access to both its standards and standards-in-the-making, and
indeed, there are still plenty of other standards that are difficult
to access.

To me this is one of the IETF's core principles, and I don't think the
"privacy everywhere" priincple comes even close to trumping it.

                               Ned

-- 
===============================================
David Farmer                          Email: farmer(_at_)umn(_dot_)edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota    
2218 University Ave SE         Phone: +1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: +1-612-812-9952
===============================================


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>