[Gzz-commits] storm/doc/pegboard/attacking_gisp--hemppah peg.rst

[Hermanni Hyytiälä]

CVSROOT:        /cvsroot/storm
Module name:    storm
Branch:         
Changes by:     Hermanni Hyytiälä <address@hidden>      03/06/11 08:51:46

Modified files:
        doc/pegboard/attacking_gisp--hemppah: peg.rst 

Log message:
        Tuomas' example statement

CVSWeb URLs:
http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/storm/storm/doc/pegboard/attacking_gisp--hemppah/peg.rst.diff?tr1=1.25&tr2=1.26&r1=text&r2=text

Patches:
Index: storm/doc/pegboard/attacking_gisp--hemppah/peg.rst
diff -u storm/doc/pegboard/attacking_gisp--hemppah/peg.rst:1.25 
storm/doc/pegboard/attacking_gisp--hemppah/peg.rst:1.26
--- storm/doc/pegboard/attacking_gisp--hemppah/peg.rst:1.25     Wed Jun 11 
08:25:38 2003
+++ storm/doc/pegboard/attacking_gisp--hemppah/peg.rst  Wed Jun 11 08:51:46 2003
@@ -4,8 +4,8 @@
 
 :Authors:  Hermanni Hyytiälä
 :Date-Created: 2003-06-05
-:Last-Modified: $Date: 2003/06/11 12:25:38 $
-:Revision: $Revision: 1.25 $
+:Last-Modified: $Date: 2003/06/11 12:51:46 $
+:Revision: $Revision: 1.26 $
 :Status:   Incomplete
 
 .. :Stakeholders:
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
 
 This is the first version of PEG document which briefly describes the attack 
 methods used by a "killer" program. The program is intended to be used to 
-test GISP_ P2P software's robustness against hostile attacks.  
+test GISP_ P2P software's robustness against hostile attacks. 
 
 In this document we mean with "hostile peer" as an entity which is able to do 
a 
 (limited/simplified/modified) number of regular GISP peer's functionalies
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
 and redundancy. The harmfulness of a peer is a consequence of the fact
 that a peer is wilfully malicious. 
 
-Once this PEG is accepted we will start the experiments.
+.. Once this PEG is accepted we will start the experiments. 
 
 Disclaimer
 ==========
@@ -139,6 +139,22 @@
 
 - GISP has O(log n) lookup efficiency, e.g., with 10000 peers
   the lookup length is 6 (average)
+  
+.. No, you should not say "expect similar" - it's far too vague.
+   You should make explicit statements as to what the results will
+   be.
+
+   Stating
+
+      If fraction f of the peers are dumb, then fraction f of the lookups
+      will fail at all network sizes.
+
+  would be ok. This is an accurate, measurable statement which we can then
+  start seeing whether it's right or wrong.
+
+  Whether it *is* right or wrong, depends of course on the exact behaviour
+  of GISP which it's your job to find out about (and not emailing the author
+  except as last recourse).
 
 .. more to come