[e2e] was double blind, now reproduceable results
touch at ISI.EDU
Thu May 20 09:08:08 PDT 2004
Jonathan Stone wrote:
> In message <22.214.171.124.2.20040519194147.05b61bc8 at 127.0.0.1>"David P. Reed" writes
>>At 04:11 PM 5/19/2004, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
>>>well this doesnt argue that we should publish part of the experiment,
>>>but even more strongly then that a unique observation should be
>>>captured more completely.
>>I don't disagree with making all the data available, and that is almost
>>always possible, even where reproducibility is hard.
> With the notable exception of whole-payload packet traces. If you can
> get permission to collect them at all, its well-nigh impossible to
> redistribute them. For obvious and excellent reasons.
It ought to be possible in those cases - if not required - to provide
reasonable access to run second-party tests to confirm results.
Anything short of that ought not be published, for obvious and excellent
reasons as well - except, by definition, in the Journal of
Irreproducable Results. ;-)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://www.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20040520/ac020223/signature.bin
More information about the end2end-interest