LogSeq/pages/Programmable WIDS API.md

• 
• 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • 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
    • 5 - Strong Accept
  • Suggested Presentation Style What type of presentation do you recommend for this submission?
    • Formal Session
    • Poster Session
    • Not recommended for presentation
  • Favorite
    • No
    • 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
    • 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) describe some of the challenges with detecting intrusions/attacks on wireless networks and outline the current capabilities of the Aruba AM module and the 2 pathways for users to receive alerts. The challenge outlined by the author(s) is that new attacks are constantly being created and a mechanism for dynamically defining new attack fingerprints would be helpful.
    • The solution outlined is to extend the AM module (via LUA) to enable defining new attack fingerprints (potentially by the end user) to allow both detection and triggering of protection mechansims.
    • The author(s) do a good job of outlining the challenges and solution, although a bit more detail on the planned API interface, authethication, etc would have been very helpful.
    • The idea seems like a good step forward and I will be very interested to see the final demo (and data on how the added detection scales/performs)
  • 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).