On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Michael Grube
wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Evan Daniel wrote:
>>
>> Submitting a response to the Pitch Black paper seems a bit premature,
>> given that in the real world we probably have network distribution
>> problems even without an active adver
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Michael Grube wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Evan Daniel wrote:
>>
>> Submitting a response to the Pitch Black paper seems a bit premature,
>> given that in the real world we probably have network distribution
>> problems even without an active advers
IIRC it was PET (Privacy-Enhancing Technologies) that rejected the last paper,
due to it not having a focus on security?
IEEE P2P is not so security-oriented, I think, in which case we would have a
better chance of being accepted by them.
X
On 15/01/12 23:46, Ian Clarke wrote:
> Will you submit?
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Ian Clarke wrote:
> Will you submit?
Under the assumption that the paper is where it needs to be by the
deadline, yes.
> These guys have rejected our papers in the past specifically because we
> haven't yet formally responded to the Pitch Black paper, so subm
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Evan Daniel wrote:
> Submitting a response to the Pitch Black paper seems a bit premature,
> given that in the real world we probably have network distribution
> problems even without an active adversary.
>
Could you be more specific? Are you talking about the c
Submitting a response to the Pitch Black paper seems a bit premature,
given that in the real world we probably have network distribution
problems even without an active adversary.
I continue to think that the biggest thing preventing routing layer
improvements is a fairly deep lack of understandin
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Ian Clarke wrote:
> Will you submit?
Under the assumption that the paper is where it needs to be by the
deadline, yes.
> These guys have rejected our papers in the past specifically because we
> haven't yet formally responded to the Pitch Black paper, so subm
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Evan Daniel wrote:
> Submitting a response to the Pitch Black paper seems a bit premature,
> given that in the real world we probably have network distribution
> problems even without an active adversary.
>
Could you be more specific? Are you talking about the c
Thanks for this link! I might write up a little paper on a little p2p
project I just made: http://share.gun.io
(I've also just started a mailing list for people who are interested in
hacking on web-based P2P software, if anybody is interested:
web...@librelist.com)
Thanks again!
Rich
On Sun, Jan
Thanks for this link! I might write up a little paper on a little p2p
project I just made: http://share.gun.io
(I've also just started a mailing list for people who are interested in
hacking on web-based P2P software, if anybody is interested:
webp2p at librelist.com)
Thanks again!
Rich
On Sun,
Submitting a response to the Pitch Black paper seems a bit premature,
given that in the real world we probably have network distribution
problems even without an active adversary.
I continue to think that the biggest thing preventing routing layer
improvements is a fairly deep lack of understandin
Ah, you're right Ximin, I got mixed up.
Ian.
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Ximin Luo wrote:
> IIRC it was PET (Privacy-Enhancing Technologies) that rejected the last
> paper,
> due to it not having a focus on security?
>
> IEEE P2P is not so security-oriented, I think, in which case we would
Will you submit? These guys have rejected our papers in the past
specifically because we haven't yet formally responded to the Pitch Black
paper, so submitting a response to it would be a pretty good thing IMHO.
Have you had any contact with Theodore Hong? If you ask him very nicely he
may be wi
Ah, you're right Ximin, I got mixed up.
Ian.
On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Ximin Luo wrote:
> IIRC it was PET (Privacy-Enhancing Technologies) that rejected the last
> paper,
> due to it not having a focus on security?
>
> IEEE P2P is not so security-oriented, I think, in which case we would
IIRC it was PET (Privacy-Enhancing Technologies) that rejected the last paper,
due to it not having a focus on security?
IEEE P2P is not so security-oriented, I think, in which case we would have a
better chance of being accepted by them.
X
On 15/01/12 23:46, Ian Clarke wrote:
> Will you submit?
Will you submit? These guys have rejected our papers in the past
specifically because we haven't yet formally responded to the Pitch Black
paper, so submitting a response to it would be a pretty good thing IMHO.
Have you had any contact with Theodore Hong? If you ask him very nicely he
may be wi
Thanks for the info!
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Ian Clarke wrote:
> fyi
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: David Hausheer
> Date: Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:27 PM
> Subject: Call for Papers: IEEE P2P 2012
> To: David Hausheer
>
>
> ##**##
fyi
-- Forwarded message --
From: David Hausheer
Date: Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:27 PM
Subject: Call for Papers: IEEE P2P 2012
To: David Hausheer
##**##**#
IEEE P2P 2012
12th International Conference
Thanks for the info!
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Ian Clarke wrote:
> fyi
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: David Hausheer
> Date: Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:27 PM
> Subject: Call for Papers: IEEE P2P 2012
> To: David Hausheer
>
>
> ##**##
fyi
-- Forwarded message --
From: David Hausheer
Date: Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 5:27 PM
Subject: Call for Papers: IEEE P2P 2012
To: David Hausheer
##**##**#
IEEE P2P 2012
12th International Conference
20 matches
Mail list logo
