investigating meta-spam

I consider working on a Draft on meta-spam and would be interested in comments and in interests to participate to a preparatory mailing list. I define meta-spam as: sending non approved information within regular protocols, headers, contents, etc. for a further results unexpected by the

Last call tools

Brian == Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: for example has anyone tried using a wiki to maintain an issues list? Brian Quite a few WGs use issue trackers of various kinds. Brian The Global Grid Forum uses a web tool based on sourceforge Brian for Last Call

Re: IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria

Avri == Avri Doria [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Avri - MUST NOT be held in a country whose visa requirements are Avri so stringent as to make it impossible or even extremely Avri difficult for some participant to attend. I think this is too strict. I think visa criteria are an issue,

Re: IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria

Hallam-Baker, == Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hallam-Baker, How about adding that the mean outdoor temperature Hallam-Baker, at the time of the year the meeting is being held Hallam-Baker, should be above 0 degrees Centigrade? I'd rather not adopt this

Re: IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:05:54 -0400 Sam Hartman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hallam-Baker, == Hallam-Baker, Phillip [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hallam-Baker, How about adding that the mean outdoor temperature Hallam-Baker, at the time of the year the meeting is being held

Re: IETF Meeting Venue Selection Criteria

Sam, I think Avri intended to say that there are SOME countries in the world where visa requirements for citizens of some OTHER countries in the world are so restrictive or slow to process or expensive etc, that it makes it virtually impossible to travel to confereces etc. To list this

Re: [PWE3] Last Call: 'IANA Allocations for pseudo Wire Edge to E dge Emulation (PWE3)' to BCP

Eric, Last Call Has ended , and I did not see any objections to using the IETF consensus instead of reserved . ( which I mean to be according to rfc 2434 ) I also support having the working changed from reserved to IETF consensus according to rfc 2434 as suggested by Stewart. I believe

Re: Last call tools

Hi Sam, I have a design for an issue tracker adapted for IETF use lying around, but haven't had time to implement it yet. I think it may match the requirements you place on a solution in your note below. The idea is based on my experience when doing issue tracking for the IASA BCP during

Re: investigating meta-spam

I think documenting this sort of thing would be useful. I think it is more often called covert channel analysis or examined under the heading of privacy implications of protocols. I do not have time to actively work on the project, but I do think that we could significantly benefit from work in

Re: investigating meta-spam

At 02:20 17/10/2005, Sam Hartman wrote: I think documenting this sort of thing would be useful. I think it is more often called covert channel analysis or examined under the heading of privacy implications of protocols. I would be interested in URL or RFC references. Also, I understand you

Re: investigating meta-spam

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], JFC (Jefsey) M orfin writes: At 02:20 17/10/2005, Sam Hartman wrote: I think documenting this sort of thing would be useful. I think it is more often called covert channel analysis or examined under the heading of privacy implications of protocols. I would be