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?
In my head, how to appropriately setup privacy friendly defaults for
http is much more interesting (and by "appropriate" I do include maybe
keeping some form of cleartext access, perhaps no longer as default,
but that'd have to be figured out).
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.
I guess it might. If so, sorry. But actually I was including those on
my "side" of the argument too - so far I've only seen repeat arguments
here from all perspectives. But maybe I'm missing something specific to
FTP and your answer to the question above will help,
Cheers,
S.
Ned