Dave Crocker wrote:
Leif,
LJ Big hotels that are cheap and where the staff won't throw a fit
LJ when we all turn up in force, laptops, duct-tape and all, don't
LJ exactly grow on trees you know! I'm happy if it has a bar.
that must be why we are going to one that costs US$ 179/night,
with
On 21-mei-04, at 8:56, Leif Johansson wrote:
LJ Big hotels that are cheap and where the staff won't throw a fit
LJ when we all turn up in force, laptops, duct-tape and all, don't
LJ exactly grow on trees you know! I'm happy if it has a bar.
that must be why we are going to one that costs US$
Hi,
I've already raised this some time ago, same as other people did, but I still see my
name being published, w/o my consent, in the list of attendees.
This is not acceptable, we should have the option to choose if we want to have our
name published or not when we do the registration.
I will
Jordi,
This has been discussed several times before. While I share
your discomfort, IETF is not some conference you might be
attending. It is very difficult to claim that one has an open
standards process when some participants are permitted attend
meetings and, potentially, influence
--On 21. mai 2004 10:31 +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
But I have
seen worse. The LA IETF was 200$ per night. The 'throw-a-fit' bit
probably limits the choices a bit too. I remember working on the
Stockholm IETF. We (the local staff) were politely asked but the
staff of the
--On 21. mai 2004 13:24 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I've already raised this some time ago, same as other people did, but I
still see my name being published, w/o my consent, in the list of
attendees.
This is not acceptable, we should have the option to choose if we
--On Friday, 21 May, 2004 13:24 +0200 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I've already raised this some time ago, same as other people
did, but I still see my name being published, w/o my consent,
in the list of attendees.
This could be solved by the IETF insisting
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
I've already raised this some time ago, same as other
people did, but I still see my name being published,
w/o my consent, in the list of attendees.
Besides the fact that it is done without your consent, is there
something fundamentally wrong with it in your view?
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 12:05:00AM +1000, grenville armitage wrote:
This could be solved by the IETF insisting that consent is required
before attendance. I, like John, do not believe it is acceptable for
the IETF meetings to be populated by anonymous attendees.
The issue is someone knowing
Hi John,
I actually (myself) have no problem to have my name published, my complain was somehow
an indirect one ... because what is surprising is that when we had this type of
discussion several times, no solution or decision is publicly provided. That's really
annoying. We aren't here
Hi Harald,
I'm not expert in legal stuff, but I think the European regulations (at least in Spain
because I needed to learn this in order to host web sites with any kind of
registration or list of people and comply with the law), there is no difference in
publishing it before, during or after.
Maybe I'm using an alias... I could be Jim Fleming :)
Tim... Jim... the plot thickens!
___
Ietf mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
(Finally back after a prolonged sabbatical - last few months have been
too weird/hectic for me to do much of anything IETF-related)..
On Fri, 21 May 2004 15:55:50 BST, Tim Chown [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 12:05:00AM +1000, grenville armitage wrote:
This could be solved
On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 16:59, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
SNIP privacy talk
The other good example is the IPv6 issue. As I recall, I saw (and even participated)
in that debate a couple of times. Today I see no objective reason for not doing that,
but we don't have a decision on that. Is that
On Fri, May 21, 2004 at 11:33:14AM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
However, before we say that is a wonderful idea (or not),
let's remember the substance of several of the IETF
administration notes and documents that have been circulated in
the last several months. If I understand those
Leif Johansson wrote:
Maybe I'm using an alias... I could be Jim Fleming :)
Tim... Jim... the plot thickens!
conspiracyAnd the ASCII representations of Tim Chown and Jim
Fleming can *both* be written as 0s and 1s!
/conspiracy
--
/\
--On Friday, 21 May, 2004 15:55 +0100 Tim Chown
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 12:05:00AM +1000, grenville armitage
wrote:
This could be solved by the IETF insisting that consent is
required before attendance. I, like John, do not believe it
is acceptable for the IETF meetings
On Fri, 21 May 2004, Jeroen Massar wrote:
On Fri, 2004-05-21 at 16:59, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
SNIP privacy talk
The other good example is the IPv6 issue. As I recall, I saw (and even
participated)
in that debate a couple of times. Today I see no objective reason for not doing
This is what I asked to have done at the conclusion of our last debate on
the issue. It seems to not have been carried forward into the IETF 60
webform.
Harald
-- Forwarded Message --
Date: 28. januar 2004 17:30 -0800
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [EMAIL
Original Message
Subject: Re: respect privacy please !
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, May 21, 2004 8:31 am
To: Tim Chown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maybe I'm using an alias... I could be Jim Fleming :)
Waving my patent-pending kook-o-meter over your
I think Mark's suggestion is very reasonable in the short term, as it
neatly bypasses the problem of accuracy and accountability in spam
blacklisting services. And of course Dean always has the option of
getting an email account on a non-blacklisted provider. (When I
complained to Road
Thanks Harald, and also to the others who responded. It appears I
was mistaken in saying that I had never seen the statement beginning:
This document and the information contained herein...,
since the same text appears in some of my own documents. However,
I don't recall ever seeing it prefaced
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
--On 21. mai 2004 11:30 -0700 Fred Templin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm still a bit puzzled by what Disclaimer of Validity could mean,
.e.g., could it mean that everything that appears in the document
before it is invalid? Would appreciate clarification on this.
I
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
Hi Harald,
I'm not expert in legal stuff, but I think the European regulations (at least in Spain
because I needed to learn this in order to host web sites with any kind of
registration or list of people and comply with the law), there is no difference in
publishing
Tim Chown wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 12:05:00AM +1000, grenville armitage wrote:
This could be solved by the IETF insisting that consent is required
before attendance. I, like John, do not believe it is acceptable for
the IETF meetings to be populated by anonymous attendees.
The
Tim Chown wrote:
The issue is someone knowing where I am for a week, in advance.
I'm sure Osama would care about that, but do you mind explaining why you
do? Hitmen are going to hunt you down? If there is a bounty on your
head, consider allowing a fellow IETFer to get it instead of an
anonymous
At 05:51 PM 5/21/2004 -0700, Michel Py writeth:
Tim Chown wrote:
The issue is someone knowing where I am for a week, in advance.
I'm sure Osama would care about that, but do you mind explaining why you
do? Hitmen are going to hunt you down? If there is a bounty on your
head, consider allowing a
Yes, but what about those of us who just show up, instead of registering?
We are able to maintain a modicum of privacy;)
On Fri, 21 May 2004, Thomas J. Hruska wrote:
At 05:51 PM 5/21/2004 -0700, Michel Py writeth:
Tim Chown wrote:
The issue is someone knowing where I am for a week, in
28 matches
Mail list logo
