[cap-talk] "ACLs don't" paper rejected from Oakland 09

[David Wagner]

Toby Murray  wrote:
>I honestly don't believe that the insights assembled in this paper are
>common knowledge, especially amongst security traditionalists. They are
>certainly not covered by any of the mainstream general texts on computer
>security that would be used by any University security course.

I would say that the Oakland conference does not exist to educate the
world.  Just because something is not widely known is not sufficient
reason for publication in Oakland.  Also, I can think of lots of things
in security that are not widely known -- they are known only to specialists
-- but would not be published at Oakland.  "Not widely known" is far too
low a bar; novelty requires a much stronger condition, e.g., "not
previously known" or "not previously published" (even in an obscure
place) or somesuch.

>The third reviewer clearly gets it. The fact that they scored it a weak
>accept anyway indicates that Oakland must reject good papers.

Very much so!  Oakland is very selective.