summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/doc
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorJulius Bünger <buenger@mytum.de>2019-07-22 22:33:11 +0200
committerJulius Bünger <buenger@mytum.de>2019-07-23 00:09:28 +0200
commitb92650ab1d79cd1228dd2678bf87b9edbe37328b (patch)
tree28f50827103d73599866eade236423c97cd1621c /doc
parent15f7a3440dd3372781b1569e401a7e909b55e727 (diff)
RPS doc: Fix typo and formulation
Diffstat (limited to 'doc')
-rw-r--r--doc/handbook/chapters/developer.texi6
1 files changed, 3 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/doc/handbook/chapters/developer.texi b/doc/handbook/chapters/developer.texi
index c7c4e478e..39f56c7b7 100644
--- a/doc/handbook/chapters/developer.texi
+++ b/doc/handbook/chapters/developer.texi
@@ -8860,9 +8860,9 @@ Preferably using annotations.
@section RPS Subsystem
In literature, Random Peer Sampling (RPS) refers to the problem of
-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.
+reliably@footnote{"Reliable" in this context means having no bias,
+neither spatial, nor temporal, 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