* [Bismark-users] coping with conflicts @ 2011-03-15 18:42 Dave Täht 2011-03-15 18:43 ` Srikanth Sundaresan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Dave Täht @ 2011-03-15 18:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bismark-users I have some conflicts that I would like to clearly resolve as we ramp up. 1) The bufferbloat project is trying to fix the internet 2) you are trying to study the internet as it exists While some of the bufferbloat fixes in the pipeline will de-heisenberg your measurements, the two ideas do conflict somewhat as does your schedule vs ours. The wndr3700, which 6+ people have now, is looking to become a focus of our efforts for item 1, and may ultimately become a model for the "perfect router". (Although I would bet on the upcoming 32MB flash stuff coming out later this year as a better model) -- Dave Taht http://nex-6.taht.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bismark-users] coping with conflicts 2011-03-15 18:42 [Bismark-users] coping with conflicts Dave Täht @ 2011-03-15 18:43 ` Srikanth Sundaresan 2011-03-15 18:47 ` Nick Feamster 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Srikanth Sundaresan @ 2011-03-15 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bismark-users It seems to me that they can coexist; to study the impact of the changes, we do need to know the existing ground truth, no? - Srikanth On 03/15/2011 02:42 PM, Dave Täht wrote: > > > I have some conflicts that I would like to clearly resolve as we ramp > up. > > 1) The bufferbloat project is trying to fix the internet > 2) you are trying to study the internet as it exists > > While some of the bufferbloat fixes in the pipeline will de-heisenberg your > measurements, the two ideas do conflict somewhat as does your schedule > vs ours. > > The wndr3700, which 6+ people have now, is looking to become a focus of > our efforts for item 1, and may ultimately become a model for the > "perfect router". (Although I would bet on the upcoming 32MB flash stuff > coming out later this year as a better model) > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bismark-users] coping with conflicts 2011-03-15 18:43 ` Srikanth Sundaresan @ 2011-03-15 18:47 ` Nick Feamster 2011-03-15 18:54 ` Dave Täht 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Nick Feamster @ 2011-03-15 18:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Srikanth Sundaresan; +Cc: bismark-users I agree. On Mar 15, 2011, at 2:43 PM, Srikanth Sundaresan wrote: > It seems to me that they can coexist; to study the impact of the > changes, we do need to know the existing ground truth, no? > > - Srikanth > > On 03/15/2011 02:42 PM, Dave Täht wrote: >> >> >> I have some conflicts that I would like to clearly resolve as we ramp >> up. >> >> 1) The bufferbloat project is trying to fix the internet >> 2) you are trying to study the internet as it exists >> >> While some of the bufferbloat fixes in the pipeline will de-heisenberg your >> measurements, the two ideas do conflict somewhat as does your schedule >> vs ours. >> >> The wndr3700, which 6+ people have now, is looking to become a focus of >> our efforts for item 1, and may ultimately become a model for the >> "perfect router". (Although I would bet on the upcoming 32MB flash stuff >> coming out later this year as a better model) >> > _______________________________________________ > Bismark-users mailing list > Bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-users ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bismark-users] coping with conflicts 2011-03-15 18:47 ` Nick Feamster @ 2011-03-15 18:54 ` Dave Täht 2011-03-15 18:58 ` Nick Feamster 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Dave Täht @ 2011-03-15 18:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nick Feamster; +Cc: bismark-users Nick Feamster <feamster@cc.gatech.edu> writes: > I agree. To what? :) Would you consider your existing study "ground truth" and the upcoming one "revealed truth"? When I talked to de-heisenberging below, the goal would be to eliminate or at least compensate/understand the factors introduced by the measurement box. Measuring cable modem and DSL latencies/problems and the internet itself, remain a goal, but, for example, the end-user experience of using the box itself with some/much of the new stuff is important to us. > > On Mar 15, 2011, at 2:43 PM, Srikanth Sundaresan wrote: > >> It seems to me that they can coexist; to study the impact of the >> changes, we do need to know the existing ground truth, no? >> >> - Srikanth >> >> On 03/15/2011 02:42 PM, Dave Täht wrote: >>> >>> >>> I have some conflicts that I would like to clearly resolve as we ramp >>> up. >>> >>> 1) The bufferbloat project is trying to fix the internet >>> 2) you are trying to study the internet as it exists >>> >>> While some of the bufferbloat fixes in the pipeline will de-heisenberg your >>> measurements, the two ideas do conflict somewhat as does your schedule >>> vs ours. >>> >>> The wndr3700, which 6+ people have now, is looking to become a focus of >>> our efforts for item 1, and may ultimately become a model for the >>> "perfect router". (Although I would bet on the upcoming 32MB flash stuff >>> coming out later this year as a better model) >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bismark-users mailing list >> Bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-users > > _______________________________________________ > Bismark-users mailing list > Bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-users -- Dave Taht http://nex-6.taht.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bismark-users] coping with conflicts 2011-03-15 18:54 ` Dave Täht @ 2011-03-15 18:58 ` Nick Feamster 2011-03-15 19:02 ` Dave Täht 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Nick Feamster @ 2011-03-15 18:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Täht; +Cc: bismark-users I think we are both interested in: - measuring the current state of affairs (as a baseline) - designing techniques to try to improve latencies/problems - measuring how well respective techniques improve latencies/problems On Mar 15, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Dave Täht wrote: > Nick Feamster <feamster@cc.gatech.edu> writes: > >> I agree. > > To what? :) > > Would you consider your existing study "ground truth" and the upcoming > one "revealed truth"? > > When I talked to de-heisenberging below, the goal would be to eliminate > or at least compensate/understand the factors introduced by the > measurement box. > > Measuring cable modem and DSL latencies/problems and the internet > itself, remain a goal, but, for example, the end-user experience of > using the box itself with some/much of the new stuff is important to > us. > >> >> On Mar 15, 2011, at 2:43 PM, Srikanth Sundaresan wrote: >> >>> It seems to me that they can coexist; to study the impact of the >>> changes, we do need to know the existing ground truth, no? >>> >>> - Srikanth >>> >>> On 03/15/2011 02:42 PM, Dave Täht wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I have some conflicts that I would like to clearly resolve as we ramp >>>> up. >>>> >>>> 1) The bufferbloat project is trying to fix the internet >>>> 2) you are trying to study the internet as it exists >>>> >>>> While some of the bufferbloat fixes in the pipeline will de-heisenberg your >>>> measurements, the two ideas do conflict somewhat as does your schedule >>>> vs ours. >>>> >>>> The wndr3700, which 6+ people have now, is looking to become a focus of >>>> our efforts for item 1, and may ultimately become a model for the >>>> "perfect router". (Although I would bet on the upcoming 32MB flash stuff >>>> coming out later this year as a better model) >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bismark-users mailing list >>> Bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-users >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bismark-users mailing list >> Bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-users > > -- > Dave Taht > http://nex-6.taht.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bismark-users] coping with conflicts 2011-03-15 18:58 ` Nick Feamster @ 2011-03-15 19:02 ` Dave Täht 2011-03-15 19:06 ` Nick Feamster 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Dave Täht @ 2011-03-15 19:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nick Feamster; +Cc: bismark-users One of the things in the upcoming writing queue is a string of articles for the ACM, case studies. Would you be interested in that? Are there other publication targets? Nick Feamster <feamster@cc.gatech.edu> writes: > I think we are both interested in: > > - measuring the current state of affairs (as a baseline) > - designing techniques to try to improve latencies/problems > - measuring how well respective techniques improve latencies/problems > > On Mar 15, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Dave Täht wrote: > >> Nick Feamster <feamster@cc.gatech.edu> writes: >> >>> I agree. >> >> To what? :) >> >> Would you consider your existing study "ground truth" and the upcoming >> one "revealed truth"? >> >> When I talked to de-heisenberging below, the goal would be to eliminate >> or at least compensate/understand the factors introduced by the >> measurement box. >> >> Measuring cable modem and DSL latencies/problems and the internet >> itself, remain a goal, but, for example, the end-user experience of >> using the box itself with some/much of the new stuff is important to >> us. >> >>> >>> On Mar 15, 2011, at 2:43 PM, Srikanth Sundaresan wrote: >>> >>>> It seems to me that they can coexist; to study the impact of the >>>> changes, we do need to know the existing ground truth, no? >>>> >>>> - Srikanth >>>> >>>> On 03/15/2011 02:42 PM, Dave Täht wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I have some conflicts that I would like to clearly resolve as we ramp >>>>> up. >>>>> >>>>> 1) The bufferbloat project is trying to fix the internet >>>>> 2) you are trying to study the internet as it exists >>>>> >>>>> While some of the bufferbloat fixes in the pipeline will de-heisenberg your >>>>> measurements, the two ideas do conflict somewhat as does your schedule >>>>> vs ours. >>>>> >>>>> The wndr3700, which 6+ people have now, is looking to become a focus of >>>>> our efforts for item 1, and may ultimately become a model for the >>>>> "perfect router". (Although I would bet on the upcoming 32MB flash stuff >>>>> coming out later this year as a better model) >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Bismark-users mailing list >>>> Bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net >>>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-users >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bismark-users mailing list >>> Bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-users >> >> -- >> Dave Taht >> http://nex-6.taht.net > -- Dave Taht http://nex-6.taht.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bismark-users] coping with conflicts 2011-03-15 19:02 ` Dave Täht @ 2011-03-15 19:06 ` Nick Feamster 2011-03-15 19:19 ` Poole, Brian 2011-03-15 20:31 ` Dave Täht 0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Nick Feamster @ 2011-03-15 19:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Täht; +Cc: bismark-users On Mar 15, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Dave Täht wrote: > > One of the things in the upcoming writing queue is a string of articles > for the ACM, case studies. Would you be interested in that? > Yes, definitely. > Are there other publication targets? ACM Internet measurement conference (may deadline) ACM Sigmetrics (nov deadline) and ACM Sigcomm (jan deadline) seem like natural targets, too. -Nick ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bismark-users] coping with conflicts 2011-03-15 19:06 ` Nick Feamster @ 2011-03-15 19:19 ` Poole, Brian 2011-03-15 19:24 ` Nick Feamster 2011-03-15 20:31 ` Dave Täht 1 sibling, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Poole, Brian @ 2011-03-15 19:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bismark-users Random follow-on as I've been chatting with Dave a bit in parallel on IRC as well. He mentioned getting a few things up on the shared site would help collaboration. The two biggies being our test script infrastructure and the raw data we collect. I don't imagine sharing the testing scripts would cause any big issues; it would be mostly just be logistics of getting it up/documented and deciding whether that becomes the authoritative development source. Sharing the raw data collected stuck out to me as a harder issue. Is that possible with the way previous studies have been run (ie, does the IRB cause headaches here) ? Brian ________________________________________ From: bismark-users-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net [bismark-users-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] on behalf of Nick Feamster [feamster@cc.gatech.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 3:06 PM To: Dave Täht Cc: bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net Subject: Re: [Bismark-users] coping with conflicts On Mar 15, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Dave Täht wrote: > > One of the things in the upcoming writing queue is a string of articles > for the ACM, case studies. Would you be interested in that? > Yes, definitely. > Are there other publication targets? ACM Internet measurement conference (may deadline) ACM Sigmetrics (nov deadline) and ACM Sigcomm (jan deadline) seem like natural targets, too. -Nick _______________________________________________ Bismark-users mailing list Bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-users ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bismark-users] coping with conflicts 2011-03-15 19:19 ` Poole, Brian @ 2011-03-15 19:24 ` Nick Feamster 2011-03-15 19:31 ` Srikanth Sundaresan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Nick Feamster @ 2011-03-15 19:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Poole, Brian; +Cc: bismark-users I think that sharing the active measurements could be done without IRB issues, but we should double-check. Another issue is that we want to publish on the data before other people. :-) So, perhaps releasing smaller samples early and the full data down the road (once papers get accepted) would be a good compromise? -Nick On Mar 15, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Poole, Brian wrote: > Random follow-on as I've been chatting with Dave a bit in parallel on IRC as well. He mentioned getting a few things up on the shared site would help collaboration. The two biggies being our test script infrastructure and the raw data we collect. > > I don't imagine sharing the testing scripts would cause any big issues; it would be mostly just be logistics of getting it up/documented and deciding whether that becomes the authoritative development source. > > Sharing the raw data collected stuck out to me as a harder issue. Is that possible with the way previous studies have been run (ie, does the IRB cause headaches here) ? > > Brian > ________________________________________ > From: bismark-users-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net [bismark-users-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] on behalf of Nick Feamster [feamster@cc.gatech.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 3:06 PM > To: Dave Täht > Cc: bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net > Subject: Re: [Bismark-users] coping with conflicts > > On Mar 15, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Dave Täht wrote: > >> >> One of the things in the upcoming writing queue is a string of articles >> for the ACM, case studies. Would you be interested in that? >> > > Yes, definitely. > > >> Are there other publication targets? > > ACM Internet measurement conference (may deadline) ACM Sigmetrics (nov deadline) and ACM Sigcomm (jan deadline) seem like natural targets, too. > > -Nick > _______________________________________________ > Bismark-users mailing list > Bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-users > _______________________________________________ > Bismark-users mailing list > Bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-users ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bismark-users] coping with conflicts 2011-03-15 19:24 ` Nick Feamster @ 2011-03-15 19:31 ` Srikanth Sundaresan 2011-03-15 20:08 ` Nick Feamster 2011-03-16 8:37 ` Walter de Donato 0 siblings, 2 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Srikanth Sundaresan @ 2011-03-15 19:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bismark-users Another thing we could do is provide an interface for people to look at plots, rather than provide them with the raw data. We can always provide raw data upon request (after we take a first stab at trying to publish it). On 03/15/2011 03:24 PM, Nick Feamster wrote: > I think that sharing the active measurements could be done without IRB issues, but we should double-check. > > Another issue is that we want to publish on the data before other people. :-) So, perhaps releasing smaller samples early and the full data down the road (once papers get accepted) would be a good compromise? > > -Nick > > On Mar 15, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Poole, Brian wrote: > >> Random follow-on as I've been chatting with Dave a bit in parallel on IRC as well. He mentioned getting a few things up on the shared site would help collaboration. The two biggies being our test script infrastructure and the raw data we collect. >> >> I don't imagine sharing the testing scripts would cause any big issues; it would be mostly just be logistics of getting it up/documented and deciding whether that becomes the authoritative development source. >> >> Sharing the raw data collected stuck out to me as a harder issue. Is that possible with the way previous studies have been run (ie, does the IRB cause headaches here) ? >> >> Brian >> ________________________________________ >> From: bismark-users-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net [bismark-users-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] on behalf of Nick Feamster [feamster@cc.gatech.edu] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 3:06 PM >> To: Dave Täht >> Cc: bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net >> Subject: Re: [Bismark-users] coping with conflicts >> >> On Mar 15, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Dave Täht wrote: >> >>> >>> One of the things in the upcoming writing queue is a string of articles >>> for the ACM, case studies. Would you be interested in that? >>> >> >> Yes, definitely. >> >> >>> Are there other publication targets? >> >> ACM Internet measurement conference (may deadline) ACM Sigmetrics (nov deadline) and ACM Sigcomm (jan deadline) seem like natural targets, too. >> >> -Nick >> _______________________________________________ >> Bismark-users mailing list >> Bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-users >> _______________________________________________ >> Bismark-users mailing list >> Bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-users > > _______________________________________________ > Bismark-users mailing list > Bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-users ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bismark-users] coping with conflicts 2011-03-15 19:31 ` Srikanth Sundaresan @ 2011-03-15 20:08 ` Nick Feamster 2011-03-16 8:37 ` Walter de Donato 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Nick Feamster @ 2011-03-15 20:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Srikanth Sundaresan; +Cc: bismark-users Great idea. On Mar 15, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Srikanth Sundaresan wrote: > Another thing we could do is provide an interface for people to look at > plots, rather than provide them with the raw data. We can always provide > raw data upon request (after we take a first stab at trying to publish it). > > > On 03/15/2011 03:24 PM, Nick Feamster wrote: >> I think that sharing the active measurements could be done without IRB issues, but we should double-check. >> >> Another issue is that we want to publish on the data before other people. :-) So, perhaps releasing smaller samples early and the full data down the road (once papers get accepted) would be a good compromise? >> >> -Nick >> >> On Mar 15, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Poole, Brian wrote: >> >>> Random follow-on as I've been chatting with Dave a bit in parallel on IRC as well. He mentioned getting a few things up on the shared site would help collaboration. The two biggies being our test script infrastructure and the raw data we collect. >>> >>> I don't imagine sharing the testing scripts would cause any big issues; it would be mostly just be logistics of getting it up/documented and deciding whether that becomes the authoritative development source. >>> >>> Sharing the raw data collected stuck out to me as a harder issue. Is that possible with the way previous studies have been run (ie, does the IRB cause headaches here) ? >>> >>> Brian >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: bismark-users-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net [bismark-users-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] on behalf of Nick Feamster [feamster@cc.gatech.edu] >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 3:06 PM >>> To: Dave Täht >>> Cc: bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> Subject: Re: [Bismark-users] coping with conflicts >>> >>> On Mar 15, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Dave Täht wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> One of the things in the upcoming writing queue is a string of articles >>>> for the ACM, case studies. Would you be interested in that? >>>> >>> >>> Yes, definitely. >>> >>> >>>> Are there other publication targets? >>> >>> ACM Internet measurement conference (may deadline) ACM Sigmetrics (nov deadline) and ACM Sigcomm (jan deadline) seem like natural targets, too. >>> >>> -Nick >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bismark-users mailing list >>> Bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-users >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bismark-users mailing list >>> Bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-users >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bismark-users mailing list >> Bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-users > _______________________________________________ > Bismark-users mailing list > Bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-users ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bismark-users] coping with conflicts 2011-03-15 19:31 ` Srikanth Sundaresan 2011-03-15 20:08 ` Nick Feamster @ 2011-03-16 8:37 ` Walter de Donato 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Walter de Donato @ 2011-03-16 8:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Srikanth Sundaresan; +Cc: bismark-users [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3246 bytes --] I have a web interface already working for my Italian project. You can take a look through the client by selecting "statistiche" from the tray icon menu. Also Tony is doing something similar in the hndr context. -Walter Il giorno 15/mar/2011 20.33, "Srikanth Sundaresan" <srikanth@gatech.edu> ha scritto: > Another thing we could do is provide an interface for people to look at > plots, rather than provide them with the raw data. We can always provide > raw data upon request (after we take a first stab at trying to publish it). > > > On 03/15/2011 03:24 PM, Nick Feamster wrote: >> I think that sharing the active measurements could be done without IRB issues, but we should double-check. >> >> Another issue is that we want to publish on the data before other people. :-) So, perhaps releasing smaller samples early and the full data down the road (once papers get accepted) would be a good compromise? >> >> -Nick >> >> On Mar 15, 2011, at 3:19 PM, Poole, Brian wrote: >> >>> Random follow-on as I've been chatting with Dave a bit in parallel on IRC as well. He mentioned getting a few things up on the shared site would help collaboration. The two biggies being our test script infrastructure and the raw data we collect. >>> >>> I don't imagine sharing the testing scripts would cause any big issues; it would be mostly just be logistics of getting it up/documented and deciding whether that becomes the authoritative development source. >>> >>> Sharing the raw data collected stuck out to me as a harder issue. Is that possible with the way previous studies have been run (ie, does the IRB cause headaches here) ? >>> >>> Brian >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: bismark-users-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net [ bismark-users-bounces@lists.bufferbloat.net] on behalf of Nick Feamster [ feamster@cc.gatech.edu] >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 3:06 PM >>> To: Dave Täht >>> Cc: bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> Subject: Re: [Bismark-users] coping with conflicts >>> >>> On Mar 15, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Dave Täht wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> One of the things in the upcoming writing queue is a string of articles >>>> for the ACM, case studies. Would you be interested in that? >>>> >>> >>> Yes, definitely. >>> >>> >>>> Are there other publication targets? >>> >>> ACM Internet measurement conference (may deadline) ACM Sigmetrics (nov deadline) and ACM Sigcomm (jan deadline) seem like natural targets, too. >>> >>> -Nick >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bismark-users mailing list >>> Bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-users >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bismark-users mailing list >>> Bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net >>> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-users >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Bismark-users mailing list >> Bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net >> https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-users > _______________________________________________ > Bismark-users mailing list > Bismark-users@lists.bufferbloat.net > https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/bismark-users > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4730 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bismark-users] coping with conflicts 2011-03-15 19:06 ` Nick Feamster 2011-03-15 19:19 ` Poole, Brian @ 2011-03-15 20:31 ` Dave Täht 1 sibling, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Dave Täht @ 2011-03-15 20:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nick Feamster; +Cc: bismark-users Nick Feamster <feamster@cc.gatech.edu> writes: > On Mar 15, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Dave Täht wrote: > >> >> One of the things in the upcoming writing queue is a string of articles >> for the ACM, case studies. Would you be interested in that? >> > > Yes, definitely. > > >> Are there other publication targets? > > ACM Internet measurement conference (may deadline) ACM Sigmetrics (nov deadline) and ACM Sigcomm (jan deadline) seem like natural targets, too. In discussion with sri and pooleb I see no way to have new data before may, not with new hardware and software involved. So best to aim for ACM sigmetrics and later, and a Phase 1 "stable" delivery of hardware/software by may 1, at best, to a small selection of geeky types, to work the bugs out. Phase II would expand the survey to as many users as you have budget for, in the US, approximately 2 months later. Phase III, worldwide. I would hope to co-ordinate with several other universities in phase II and III. > > -Nick -- Dave Taht http://nex-6.taht.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-03-16 8:37 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-03-15 18:42 [Bismark-users] coping with conflicts Dave Täht 2011-03-15 18:43 ` Srikanth Sundaresan 2011-03-15 18:47 ` Nick Feamster 2011-03-15 18:54 ` Dave Täht 2011-03-15 18:58 ` Nick Feamster 2011-03-15 19:02 ` Dave Täht 2011-03-15 19:06 ` Nick Feamster 2011-03-15 19:19 ` Poole, Brian 2011-03-15 19:24 ` Nick Feamster 2011-03-15 19:31 ` Srikanth Sundaresan 2011-03-15 20:08 ` Nick Feamster 2011-03-16 8:37 ` Walter de Donato 2011-03-15 20:31 ` Dave Täht
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox