Or are you suggesting saving that data even if its incomplete in both
directions? I seem to remember Jack saying that this last one was a bad
idea.
On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Neal Cardwell wrote:
> Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1998 12:51:12 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Neal Cardwell <cardwell@cs.washington.edu>
> To: "'syn@cs.washington.edu'" <syn@cs.washington.edu>
> Subject: strobe
>
>
> Looks good!
>
> One thought: There seems to be an indication (in the description of
> "Path-Set TROs") that results for an interval are only used if the Master
> was able to measure both directions of all A->X..->Y->B paths involved.
> If i'm interpreting this correctly, then this seems like it will throw
> away some useful info. Even if the Master doesn't get *all* the data it
> would like to, it's still useful to know that there were *some* better
> paths during that window.
>
> neal
>
> On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Stefan Savage wrote:
>
> > Also, it'd be nice if people could take a moment to read John's second
> > measurement proposal (its only 3 pages long) and comment on it this
> > meeting. This is important stuff... these numbers are the hottest thing
> > we've got, and the strength of our methodology is going to directly
> > affect how much people believe us. Anyway, John's proposal is at:
> > http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/geigudr/tiber/Strobe.ps
>