Re: [freehaven-dev] mix reliability vs robustness?

[Nick Mathewson <nickm@reputation.com>]

Roger wrote:
>|Our notion of reliability differs from robustness in that we do not aim
>|for an ``all or nothing'' result for each message.  Instead, we focus
>|on improving a sender's choice of MIX paths over random guessing in the
>|``long run.''
>
>Is there any way to make this more precise?

I think that one of these two says about what you want to say, but the
prose isn't as concise as yours.

"Our notion of reliability differs from rebustness in that we do not
try to ensure that messages are delivered even when nodes fail.
Instead, we focus on improving a sender's long-term odds of choosing a
MIX path that avoids failing nodes."

"Traditional notions of robustness aim to specify systems in which
local failures do not prevent messages from being delivered.  Our
notion of reliability, instead, seeks to improve the long-term
probability that a sender will choose non-failing MIX paths."

Is one of these closer to what you want?  Note that my formulation of
robustness may be dodgy.

Yours,
-- 
Nick