48 lines
3.6 KiB
Markdown
48 lines
3.6 KiB
Markdown
- 
|
||
- **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
|
||
* [x] 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+
|
||
* [x] 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
|
||
* [x] 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
|
||
* [x] 3 - Weak Accept
|
||
* [ ] 4 - Accept
|
||
* [ ] 5 - Strong Accept
|
||
- **Suggested Presentation Style**
|
||
*What type of presentation do you recommend for this submission?*
|
||
* [ ] Formal Session
|
||
* [x] Poster Session
|
||
* [ ] Not recommended for presentation
|
||
- **Favorite**
|
||
* [x] 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
|
||
* [x] 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) outline a challenge associated with ProtoBuf as it scales - namely the issue of the producer changing its defined fields when the consumer may not be expecting new fields. The author(s) propose an intermediate layer that mediates the ProtoBuf definitions between consumers and producers. In the case where 'Producer A' adds a field that 'Consumer B' isn't expecting then the 'Mediator' can trim the extra/new fields to avoid a mismatch error. This would allow consumers and producers to be at different versions of the field defintions.
|
||
- While the paper could be clearer, this is a good idea that deserves further exploration. I would be interested to see an exploration of how this services scales and any latency this may introduce.
|
||
- **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).*
|
||
- Very difficult to follow. I wouldn't have known Proto referred to ProtoBuf if it wasn't in the title, and the descriptions in both the problem statement and solution outline could be clearer.
|
||
- The actual idea is quite good and makes sense to explore further (along with a good edit to make the paper easier for people to understand). |