49 lines
3.4 KiB
Markdown
49 lines
3.4 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
|
||
* [ ] 3 - Good technical work with some novel features described
|
||
* [x] 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
|
||
* [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
|
||
* [x] 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
|
||
* [x] 4 - Accept
|
||
* [ ] 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**
|
||
* [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) do great job of outlining the significant challenge facing network admins in both detecting and addressing misbehaving devices. The solution proposed looks to identify and categorize devices via fingerprinting and other methods and then detecting deviations from the expected norm. This deviation then triggers further analysis/actions to be taken.
|
||
- The paper does a great job of describing the problem and the high-level aspects of the solution. It would be interesting to see some analysis of the classification and detection statistics (wrongly classified devices, number of false positives, false negatives, etc) and what additional load this detection puts on the system.
|
||
- The author(s) present a table of "typical thresholds" - it would be good to add some discussion around how those thresholds are set (dynmimally detected vs statically set).
|
||
- **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>
|
||
- |