- ![729.pdf](../assets/729_1725987698704_0.pdf)
- **Review**
	- **Technical Innovation **
	  * [ ] 1 - Routine work, untested technical work or impractical idea
	  * [ ] 2 - Good work, not particularly novel, akin to a routine evolution of existing technologies
	  * [ ] 3 - Good technical work with some novel features described
	  * [ ] 4 - Very innovative technical work that demonstrates clear thought leadership for HPE
	  * [x] 5 - Clearly a breakthrough with significant technical innovation
	- **Business Impact**
	  * [ ] 1 - Impractical idea; limited business value
	  * [ ] 2 - Good work, but with limited direct or indirect business value, no clear path to capture business value+
	  * [ ] 3 - Moderate business impact that merits further assessment
	  * [x] 4 - Work will provide HPE with valuable and meaningful differentiation in the market
	  * [ ] 5 - Clearly and significant impacts HPE’s business, opens new market opportunities
	- **Clarity of Presentation**
	  * [ ] 1 - Difficult to understand; confusing; incomplete description; very short
	  * [ ] 2 - Hard to follow; uses unfamiliar terminology or acronyms; missing important data
	  * [ ] 3 - Understandable but lacking some relevant information
	  * [ ] 4 - Clear and logical; some important information is missing or unclear
	  * [x] 5 - Very clearly described; logical flow; well supported with practical results and proof points
	- **Overall Recommendation**
	  * [ ] 1 - Reject
	  * [ ] 2 - Weak Reject
	  * [ ] 3 - Weak Accept
	  * [ ] 4 - Accept
	  * [x] 5 - Strong Accept
	- **Suggested Presentation Style**
	  *What type of presentation do you recommend for this submission?*  
	  * [x] Formal Session
	  * [ ] Poster Session
	  * [ ] Not recommended for presentation
	- **Favorite**
	  * [ ] No
	  * [x] Yes
	- **Reviewer Confidence**
	  * [ ] 1 - No confidence - I am not qualified to pass judgement on this submission
	  * [ ] 2 - Low confidence - I do not have enough experience in this area to make a definitive decision on this submission
	  * [ ] 3 - Somewhat confident - I have a reasonable understanding of this research area
	  * [ ] 4 - Confident - I have considerable confidence in my review and understanding of this work
	  * [x] 5 - Very Confident - I am confident in my review and understanding of the work
	- **Comments for the Authors**
	  *Provide constructive comments to the author(s).*
		- The author(s) outline one the key challenges in serverless architectures such as Knative - network latency introduced by inefficient network stacks. The solution described uses several techniques including local zero-copy data sharing, RDMA for inter-node sharing and DPU offload to acheive significant reductions in both CPU load and latency.
		- This is a very well laid out paper and does an excellent job of describing both the problem space and the proposed solution. I think showing specific experimental data/metrics to show the actual gains would greatly enhance the paper.
		-
	- **Comments for the Program Committee (authors will not see these comments)**
	  *Provide comments to the PC (if any) that should not be shared with the author(s).*
		- <PLACEHOLDER>
-