IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] Experiment report: The MMD is a lie

Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com> Fri, 03 March 2017 01:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 760C7129450 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 17:06:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sleevi.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2go102LzdY7h for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 17:06:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a54.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63CDA12941C for <trans@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 17:06:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from homiemail-a54.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a54.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 791224800012B for <trans@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 17:06:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sleevi.com; h=mime-version :in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; s=sleevi.com; bh=s98l36VcGBMD3m57EvN3iRtmn6Q=; b= V2lv+uMgvpwZjSk6yh1NuPFE0ZPi3H+lwPwF2otp4MH7d3RyU+m9qhM/FoAN7U6m BOr4A2hbwbm96j7+wjPSqZclTHwCDZKgTN2LaZwJoAsXfvhpCdBbLx56CGrfnpDZ MmKyhUkBiWbU1/yrVAFqhtSXOmLLPdCICv/GJqYGlaQ=
Received: from mail-lf0-f54.google.com (mail-lf0-f54.google.com [209.85.215.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ryan@sleevi.com) by homiemail-a54.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4863C4800103F for <trans@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 17:06:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-f54.google.com with SMTP id k202so41218558lfe.1 for <trans@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 17:06:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kxRboxE6Vtl4QGPTy8K2wOnbTGzg2EsCbSg3JcK9l3t9W06u+xT0n6K/hwZpEJuo53kJhfrb9iMLCfFw==
X-Received: by 10.46.83.92 with SMTP id t28mr48622ljd.70.1488503179684; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 17:06:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.193.197 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 17:06:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAErg=HFdXEZ+=3wVJ2h-f0bD9deTdAWOCQWTw7S3A3OeWUkgbw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL02cgTXMqQre_iqUwu7O+WvuArWYFLQOLCoTdC_nqdNY+15dg@mail.gmail.com> <CAErg=HFdXEZ+=3wVJ2h-f0bD9deTdAWOCQWTw7S3A3OeWUkgbw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 17:06:19 -0800
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAErg=HFMDKiUB1ea=b263z4SK=g3bP1Ox12rm132KN6KH_atyA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAErg=HFMDKiUB1ea=b263z4SK=g3bP1Ox12rm132KN6KH_atyA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f4030436050e45b4d60549c92792"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/YRIA9Gun9pvrmPM6qLbp0p6m5os>
Cc: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, Zakir Durumeric <zakir@umich.edu>, Nick Sullivan <nick@cloudflare.com>, trans@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Trans] Experiment report: The MMD is a lie
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list <trans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/trans/>
List-Post: <mailto:trans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 01:06:23 -0000

On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Ryan Sleevi <ryan-ietf@sleevi.com> wrote:
>
> I'm confused by this conclusion, and apologies if I've misunderstood.
>
> Can you explain how this statement differs, from say a discussion about
> keeping a database in RAM and never flushing to disk? You can have amazing
> QPS - but terrible reliability. It sounds like you're describing that
> you've built an unreliable, but efficient, system, and are using that as
> proof that reliability is not a critical property?
>

And as a concrete example, consider
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/ct-policy/ohtZ64gLN3I/q4nSPkrWCQAJ

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status