3.4 KiB
3.4 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 a challenge where the IOT device stats/data reported from APs can put high load on the HPE cloud systems that process the data. While customers with significant IOT usage may leverage a separate IOTOps appliance, the author(s) outline a solution for customers where this additional appliance is no justified. The solution outlined is an aggregation and deduplication framework which identifies APs with high data similarity and allocates one AP as the aggregator which then collects, aggregates and reports the common data to the cloud service.
- The proposed solution is a logical and well thought out way to solve this challenge, and should be explored further.
- It would be useful in future iterations of the paper to explore the 'edges' of the solution - for example, what happens when an AP is on the border between two groups (i.e. logically member of both).
- 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 **
