49 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
49 lines
3.1 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
|
||
* [ ] 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>
|
||
- |