Hi Paul,
On 8/9/12 3:03 PM, Paul Syverson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 08:29:25AM +0200, Karsten Loesing wrote:
On 8/8/12 8:13 PM, Mike Perry wrote:
Since HotPETS doesn't count as "publishing" perhaps this should be listed as a tech report: http://fscked.org/talks/TorFlow-HotPETS-final.pdf
I agree. If it counted as "publishing", we'd put it on anonbib. But since that's not the case, let's put it on our tech reports list, or nobody will find it.
Wait. What!? Since when did anonbib get restricted to what is "published"? [...]
Ah, sorry for basing my statement above on an assumption so carelessly. I didn't really look whether there are only "published" papers in anonbib, or other stuff too. I just assumed that, and turns out that assumption was wrong.
How about we put the LaTeX sources in tech-reports.git, change them to use the new tech report template, assign a report number, and add a footnote saying "This report was presented at 2nd Hot Topics in Privacy Enhancing Technologies (HotPETs 2009), Seattle, WA, USA, August 2009."? Then people can decide if they rather want to cite our tech report or the HotPETs one.
This is pretty standard for tech reports at many universities, organizations, etc. Also I think, stuff on arxiv.
Okay. I think it makes sense here, regardless of whether HotPETs reports are on anonbib or not.
Best, Karsten