[e2e] was double blind, now reproduceable results

[Joe Touch]

Jonathan Stone wrote:

> In message <6.0.1.1.2.20040519194147.05b61bc8 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Anything short of that ought not be published, for obvious and excellent 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. ;-)

Joe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://www.postel.org/pipermail/end2end-interest/attachments/20040520/ac020223/signature.bin