|
|
@@ -170,6 +170,10 @@ This is found by looking at Table 3 (benchmarks for our modified code, which add
|
|
|
Our new protocols (Report Submit, Report Status, and Report Resolve) have times and sizes comparable to those of the other protocols listed in the table.
|
|
|
This claim is reproduced by [Experiment 1](#experiment-1-lox-benchmarking), which produces Tables 2 and 3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
+Note that all timing results in our paper are reported in milliseconds (ms) and often have standard deviation (σ) values on the order of nanoseconds or tens of nanoseconds.
|
|
|
+Different CPUs will produce results that differ some in the measurements themselves and in the level of precision.
|
|
|
+The most important comparison is between the existing protocols and the new protocols, from benchmarks all run on the same CPU.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
#### Main Result 2: Our Modifications Have a Small Impact on Existing Protocols
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our paper claims that our modifications to Lox result in only a small increase in communication and computation costs for the existing Lox protocols, with request sizes increasing by around 100-200 bytes.
|
|
|
@@ -181,6 +185,10 @@ Request sizes in Table 3 should be at most 192 bytes greater than the sizes in T
|
|
|
Response sizes in Tables 2 and 3 should be identical.
|
|
|
This claim is reproduced by [Experiment 1](#experiment-1-lox-benchmarking), which produces Tables 2 and 3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
+Note that all timing results in our paper are reported in milliseconds (ms) and often have standard deviation (σ) values on the order of nanoseconds or tens of nanoseconds.
|
|
|
+Different CPUs will produce results that differ some in the measurements themselves and in the level of precision.
|
|
|
+The most important comparison is between the results for existing protocols in Tables 2 and 3, from benchmarks all run on the same CPU.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
#### Main Result 3: Algorithms 1–3 are Poor Classifiers of Censorship in the Belarus Case Study
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appendix A of our paper specifies three algorithms (one of which comes from prior work by Loesing) for detecting bridge censorship based on daily connection counts.
|
|
|
@@ -250,6 +258,9 @@ These .pdf files (as well as the corresponding .tex files) are copied to the roo
|
|
|
The results can be found as table-2-results.pdf (Table 2), table-3-results.pdf (Table 3), and appendix-c-results.pdf (Table 5).
|
|
|
|
|
|
table-2-results.pdf and table-3-results.pdf can be used to verify Main Results [1](#main-result-1-new-protocols-are-comparable-to-existing-protocols) and [2](#main-result-2-our-modifications-have-a-small-impact-on-existing-protocols).
|
|
|
+Note that all timing results in our paper are reported in milliseconds (ms) and often have standard deviation (σ) values on the order of nanoseconds or tens of nanoseconds.
|
|
|
+Different CPUs will produce results that differ some in the measurements themselves and in the level of precision.
|
|
|
+The most important results are not the specific numbers reported in the paper but the comparison between measurements produced using the same CPU.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#### Experiment 2: Belarus Case Study
|
|
|
|
