14:29:35 <karsten> #startmeeting metrics team meeting 14:29:35 <MeetBot> Meeting started Thu May 3 14:29:35 2018 UTC. The chair is karsten. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 14:29:35 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 14:29:45 <karsten> I believe that iwakeh is still sick. :( 14:29:58 <karsten> that leaves you and me. 14:30:19 <irl> oh dear ): 14:30:27 <irl> ok 14:30:40 <karsten> https://storm.torproject.org/shared/5h1Goax5eNusxjXJ_Ty5Wl7hFR1uqCReUiN8xdlBG8T <- agenda pad 14:30:48 <karsten> at least we have a few topics! 14:30:59 <karsten> shall we start? 14:31:01 <irl> yep. making up for last week. (: 14:31:12 <karsten> heh 14:31:26 <karsten> okay, starting. 14:31:29 <karsten> * Metrics glossary (irl) 14:31:42 <irl> for the context for this, there is this mail: 14:31:45 <irl> https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2018-May/013147.html 14:32:02 <karsten> makes sense. what are the suggested next steps? 14:32:28 <irl> probably that we make a torspec patch for the terms used in our glossary that are not already in the torspec glossary 14:32:49 <irl> later, we should then take all the relay search tooltips and convert these into glossary items, and make sure they agree with torspec 14:33:29 <irl> onionoo fields may also be something to look at reconciling with torspec 14:33:45 <irl> but the first step is a patch to sync up our glossary 14:34:02 <karsten> how would we link to definitions in torspec? 14:34:28 <karsten> for example, https://metrics.torproject.org/userstats-relay-country.html, 14:34:35 <irl> we would maintain the glossary as it is now, we would just ensure that the definitions are the same with torspec being the canonical source 14:34:40 <karsten> the graph description contains links to clients, bridges, etc. 14:34:45 <karsten> ah! 14:34:48 <irl> we would treat disagreements with torspec as a bug 14:34:58 <karsten> okay, yes, that would work. 14:35:13 <karsten> yes, sounds like a fine idea. 14:35:38 <irl> the community glossary part of that mail is probably out of scope for this meeting 14:35:52 <karsten> so, hmm, 14:36:01 <karsten> are the audiences of these glossaries the same? 14:36:21 <irl> the community glossary definitely isn't the same 14:36:27 <karsten> I could imagine that the network team needs a different level of detail than a tor user reading something on the website (including ours). 14:36:31 <irl> metrics and torspec are more closely aligned 14:36:48 <irl> we don't necessarily need the exact same wording, but the general definition should be the same 14:36:55 <karsten> alright. 14:37:03 <irl> for example, if we defined something to not include overheads but torspec did include overheads, that would be a bug 14:37:14 <karsten> agreed. 14:37:40 <irl> ok, i'll take an action to file a ticket (but not necessarily work on it straight away)? 14:37:48 <karsten> sounds great! 14:38:05 <irl> #action irl file a ticket to make a torspec patch to include the metrics glossary terms 14:38:23 <irl> ok, we can go to the next topic 14:38:23 <karsten> next is related, I guess? 14:38:25 <karsten> * Terminology for "uptime" (irl) 14:38:33 <irl> context: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2018-May/015132.html 14:38:56 <irl> when onionoo says uptime, i think really it is actually talking about MTBF? 14:39:13 <irl> no, i mean fractional uptime 14:39:27 <irl> as opposed to absolute uptime, which is what relay search means when it says uptime 14:39:40 <irl> i just noticed this as an example of an inconsistency, there are probably others 14:39:51 <irl> i was wondering how much effort we might put into fixing these 14:39:52 <karsten> "Uptime documents contain fractional uptimes of relays and bridges." 14:40:14 <karsten> so, yes, I see the point. 14:40:37 <karsten> but, what's the suggested fix there? 14:40:48 <irl> uptime vs reachable time 14:40:52 <irl> suggested by teor 14:41:00 <karsten> ah, yes. 14:41:10 <karsten> reachable is more accurate. 14:41:26 <irl> this could be a docfix with a note about the conflicting terminology, it doesn't have to be an endpoint change 14:41:53 <karsten> in the sense of renaming the document type? 14:41:58 <irl> yes 14:42:14 <irl> well, there's renaming the java and renaming the http endpoint, which again are different 14:42:21 <karsten> agreed. I'm not so much worried of the code change, but that would require a major protocol update, and it might break clients. 14:42:32 <irl> network team is currently looking at this for onion vs hidden and where to draw the line for effort 14:42:40 <irl> we could take inspiration from their choices 14:42:41 <karsten> ok. 14:42:44 <karsten> yes! 14:43:09 <irl> how much do you think we should change? 14:43:17 <irl> i think probably just the documentation is ok 14:43:32 <karsten> sounds fine as a start. we can always change more later. 14:43:42 <irl> ok, i shall file a ticket? 14:43:46 <karsten> yes, please. 14:44:02 <karsten> I vaguely recall a related ticket. let me find it... 14:44:06 <irl> #action irl file a ticket for a docfix explaining terminology used for the uptime documents 14:44:14 <irl> ok, next topic? 14:44:25 <karsten> give me 1 min. 14:44:53 <karsten> https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/11430 14:45:36 <karsten> maybe make a note that this ticket exists, in the new ticket. 14:45:40 <karsten> not sure if it matters. 14:45:50 <irl> aah, i didn't know this about the bridges 14:45:57 <irl> i'll mention it in the new ticket 14:46:41 <karsten> okay, great! 14:46:51 <karsten> yes, next topic. 14:46:52 <karsten> * Tor bandwidth measurements document format (karsten) 14:47:01 <karsten> this is about juga's document. 14:47:18 <karsten> I said I'd read it to make sure we'll be able to archive it in collector, but then I didn't get to that yet 14:47:33 <karsten> did you read it? and do you see any problems with archiving it in collector? 14:47:59 <irl> for archiving it, do we need to parse it? 14:48:14 <karsten> to give a random example for documents that are difficult to archive: microdescriptors are particularly hard, because they don't contain a published timestamp. 14:48:32 <karsten> I guess we should be able to parse it, yes. 14:48:37 <irl> ah ok, no they do have timestamps 14:48:59 <irl> parsing should be able to either reuse code from the existing format, or code from descriptor parsing 14:49:08 <karsten> parsing is not required for archiving, but I think we should also support it in metrics-lib, because we support all formats that collector has. 14:49:49 <karsten> I mean, if it's similar to tor descriptors, we're pretty much on the safe side. 14:50:11 <karsten> just saying, if you saw/see anything that makes you wonder whether we'll be able to handle the document later on, let us know! 14:50:20 <irl> i think it's currently leaning towards being more similar to the older format 14:50:29 <irl> using = instead of spaces for seperators and such 14:50:38 <irl> nothing looks too scary though 14:50:43 <karsten> (we do not support the old format, either.) 14:50:59 <karsten> if you're not scared, that's good! :) 14:51:05 <irl> my biggest concern so far was the naming of the fields 14:51:25 <irl> i've seen good responses to my comments though 14:51:28 <karsten> saw that. makes sense to give that some thoughts. 14:51:56 <karsten> okay, great! 14:52:04 <karsten> works for me. 14:52:08 <karsten> moving on? 14:52:10 <irl> ok 14:52:16 <karsten> * Statistics-related tickets in need of discussion/review (karsten) 14:52:22 <karsten> #25383, #26002, #26015 14:52:30 <karsten> you already commented on #26002. 14:53:01 <karsten> I brought up #25383 last week. and #26015 is new. 14:53:11 <karsten> as in: from a few minutes ago. 14:53:32 <karsten> if you could make a note to look at these over the next few days, that would be awesome. 14:53:37 <irl> i commented on #25383 2 months ago (: 14:53:48 <karsten> also trying to get iwakeh to look when they're back. 14:53:51 <irl> but then you went and had more thoughts... 14:53:59 <irl> ok, i will put that up my priority list 14:54:13 <karsten> yes, I came back with a new idea, and I'm curious what you think. 14:54:24 <karsten> and what others think (joss, dcf, others.) 14:54:58 <irl> quickly reading comment:10 that seems a good idea 14:55:34 <karsten> good to hear! 14:56:19 <irl> #26015 seems like a definitions problem 14:56:20 <karsten> (maybe comment on the ticket if you still think that it's a good idea after the meeting.) 14:56:34 <irl> yep ok 14:57:10 <karsten> okay, moving on to the last topic. 14:57:11 <karsten> * Monthly report for April (karsten) 14:57:24 <karsten> I started a short list of things where we made progress on the pad. 14:57:45 <karsten> but I only spent like 5 minutes on that. 14:58:01 <karsten> I'll go through my inbox and might find more. 14:58:09 <karsten> anything that comes to your mind that we also did? 15:00:32 <irl> I think that's about it. Mostly I've been on mailing list threads and triaging tickets, but not actually getting to finish any coding tasks. 15:00:56 <karsten> okay, great! 15:01:20 <karsten> if you think of something else, please let me know. 15:01:24 <irl> will do 15:01:28 <karsten> I'll send a draft in the next couple days. 15:01:48 <karsten> okay, I guess that's all for today! 15:02:01 <irl> yep (: 15:02:09 <karsten> cool! thank you, and bye! :) 15:02:18 <irl> bye! 15:02:21 <karsten> #endmeeting