3.5 KiB
3.5 KiB
- 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 one of the challenges of managing/diagnosing large wireless networks: 2-dimensional network models often limit the operators ability to diagnose issues that require traceability in 3 dimensions (e.g. connection from another floor, etc). The author(s) propose an elegant solution that enables the creation of a 3D visualization of the network without requiring additional client hardware.
- I think this is a great idea and I certainly could have used data like this is past troubleshooting exercises.
- It will be very interesting to see in future experiments how much the building topology/materials and occupancy affects the accuracy of resulting 3d model.
- As an extension to this model, it would greatly aid visualization to be able to add 3D building data to the model for both improved visualization ("it's coming from the bosses office!") and improved accuracy.
- 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).
- Well written paper that shows a good understanding of the problem space and a clever use of available data to improve the visualization.
- **Technical Innovation **
