Hi Gordon,
I guess the interpretation of the law is unclear, but facts count. In Spain several
sites had been closed/modified because they publish data, and they needed to pay very
high penalizations (many million of Euros) because that.
Also I see more and more conferences not presenting this
On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 10:24:14AM +1000, grenville armitage wrote:
If your threat model postulates someone knowing enough about you to check
for your IETF registration, then simply knowing when IETF meetings occur gives
them a pretty good start. Testing your email account for 'out of office'
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 no secondary
y'know... if the people who have told me how glad they are that i've taken
certain loons and whackos to task here recently would cc the ietf@ list as
often as the people who have told me to stop feeding the trolls or the other
people who have told me that i lack manners...
--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
Dear Harald,
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 21, 2004 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: respect privacy please !
I don't think a legal requirement for our process can jump over the
laws. Is like if we
decide that we need to sacrifice one of us in every
Spencer,
I may be just misunderstanding your sense of humor, but it seems
to me that any sort of formal experimental process is too
heavyweight for this, or at least the core issue. It seems to
me that what we have is...
* Jordi noticed a problem and pointed it out.
*
--On 22. mai 2004 10:31 -0400 John C Klensin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spencer,
I may be just misunderstanding your sense of humor, but it seems to me
that any sort of formal experimental process is too heavyweight for this,
or at least the core issue. It seems to me that what we have is...
On 21-mei-04, at 19:00, Pekka Savola wrote:
All the services IETF servers offer are purely client-server based.
There is no significant technical advantage that I could see in making
them IPv6-enabled, because all such services are very usable with
IPv4. On the other hand, doing so would just
Tim Chown wrote:
[..]
But there's no reason the list should be published in advance.
Clearly that's a matter of opinion. My sole observation is that the
threat model postulated for yanking the pre-meeting publication seem
insufficiently analysed.
cheers,
gja
Tim Chown wrote:
[..]
But there's no reason the list should be published in advance.
Well, actually there is a reason. Suppose that a particular company
decides to stuff the room and send a large number of participant to
the meeting. There is a big difference between making the behavior
grenville armitage wrote:
My sole observation is that the threat model postulated for
yanking the pre-meeting publication seem insufficiently analysed.
Besides, yanking it would be useless. If one wants to know if Joe
Sixpack is going to attend the meeting a week in advance, here are a few
Title: Out of Office AutoReply: Possible SPAM Re: Your website
I am at the IEEE meeting and may not be able to read and reply to your message until May 23rd. If you need to contact me directly, please call +972-50-692-8065.
Regards,
Dan
13 matches
Mail list logo
