3.3 KiB
3.3 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) outline a challenge related to large wireless networks where advanced features that require application identification (such as Application specific policies) fail during Fast Roaming situations due to the lack of fast/efficient synchronization mechanism. An alternative to BGP based synchronization is proposed using MQTT to push flow identification data (for Fast Roaming candidates only) to the other leaf switches (via the spines as a aggregation point).
- This appears to be a solid solution and the analysis of scaling potential looks promising and the mixed model variants discussed in next steps seem like a logical goal.
- Overall, this is a well thought out solution and I highly encourage the team to take this forward.
- 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).
- **Technical Innovation **
