summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorJulius Bünger <buenger@mytum.de>2019-07-22 22:16:39 +0200
committerJulius Bünger <buenger@mytum.de>2019-07-22 22:20:06 +0200
commit15f7a3440dd3372781b1569e401a7e909b55e727 (patch)
tree410aca218e8ed8fd7f56f317195385fd2db8b2ff /doc
parentf6ed6cf77448fc6d036818ab2a2dc2e47437bdf3 (diff)
RPS doc: Specify "reliable", reformat link
Diffstat (limited to 'doc')
-rw-r--r--doc/handbook/chapters/developer.texi9
1 files changed, 6 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/doc/handbook/chapters/developer.texi b/doc/handbook/chapters/developer.texi
index 06f369502..c7c4e478e 100644
--- a/doc/handbook/chapters/developer.texi
+++ b/doc/handbook/chapters/developer.texi
@@ -8860,7 +8860,9 @@ Preferably using annotations.
@section RPS Subsystem
In literature, Random Peer Sampling (RPS) refers to the problem of
-reliably drawing random samples from an unstructured p2p network.
+reliably@footnote{Reliable in the sense of having no bias, neigther
+spatial, nor spatial nor through malicious activity.} drawing random
+samples from an unstructured p2p network.
Doing so in a reliable manner is not only hard because of inherent
problems but also because of possible malicious peers that could try to
@@ -8871,8 +8873,9 @@ of random peers in the whole network like gathering statistics,
spreading and aggregating information in the network, load balancing and
overlay topology management.
-The approach chosen in the RPS service implementation in GNUnet follows the
-Brahms@uref{https://bib.gnunet.org/full/date.html\#2009_5f0} design.
+The approach chosen in the RPS service implementation in GNUnet follows
+the @uref{https://bib.gnunet.org/full/date.html\#2009_5f0, Brahms}
+design.
The current state is "work in progress". There are a lot of things that
need to be done, primarily finishing the experimental evaluation and a