From erranlli at research.bell-labs.com Mon May 1 06:05:18 2006 From: erranlli at research.bell-labs.com (Li (Erran) Li) Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 09:05:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [sigcomm] CFP IEEE JSAC NON-COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR IN NETWORKING Message-ID: CALL FOR PAPERS IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications NON-COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR IN NETWORKING http://www.argreenhouse.com/society/J-SAC/Calls/non_cooperative.html Network protocols and architectures have traditionally been designed under the assumption that end users and network entities are cooperative. However, this fundamental assumption is clearly not valid in today's commercial wired and wireless networks. For example, ISPs are independent entities and they do not necessarily cooperate among one another; similarly, end users in a wireless network are interested in the share of the radio spectrum they enjoy, not in the global optimum of the system (the temptation to depart from the nominal protocols is further fueled by the increasing programmability of the end systems). These entities naturally want to optimize their own objectives. There are growing interests in using game theory and mechanism design to solve these problems. For these methods to be practical they must incorporate realistic constraints of the underlying network systems; the solutions must be scalable, easily implementable, predictable and reach stable state fast. The aim of this issue is to bring together the work done by researchers and practitioners in understanding the theoretical, architectural, system, and implementation issues related to all aspects of non-cooperative issues in networking. We seek original, previously unpublished and completed contributions not currently under review by another journal. Areas of interest include but are not limited to the following topics: Characterization and quantification of selfish behavior, e.g. among end users or among network providers Fast convergence to equilibrium Game-theoretic models and limitations Modeling of the behavior of individual players, notably by machine learning Incentive techniques, reputation systems, micro-payments Security techniques to thwart selfish behavior and to support incentive techniques Non-cooperative aspects at the MAC, routing, and transport layers Inter-layer aspects of non-cooperation Each paper should be no more than 35 pages in double-space format using font size of at least 12, including figures, graphs, and illustrations. Prospective authors should follow the IEEE J-SAC manuscript format described in the Information for Authors. Manuscripts submitted for this issue should not be under consideration by any other journal. All papers should be submitted in pdf format. To submit your paper 1) go to http://edas.info, 2) establish an account, 3) receive an email from edas with your password, 4) login to the edas system, 5) select the J-SAC issue, 6) click on view, and 7) click on submit paper and follow the instructions. The following timetable shall apply: Manuscript submission: JUNE 1, 2006 Acceptance notification: November 1, 2006 Final manuscript due: January 1, 2007 Publication: 2nd Quarter 2007 Guest Editors Levente Buttyan CrySys Laboratory BME buttyan at hit.bme.hu Jean-Pierre Hubaux School of Computer and Communications Sciences EPFL jean-pierre.hubaux at epfl.ch Li (Erran) Li Networking Research Lab Bell Labs, Lucent erranlli at research.bell-labs.com Xiang-Yang Li Dept Computer Science Illinois Inst of Technology xli at cs.iit.edu Tim Roughgarden Computer Science Dept Stanford University tim at cs.stanford.edu From touch at ISI.EDU Mon May 1 12:52:06 2006 From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 12:52:06 -0700 Subject: [sigcomm] CFP IEEE JSAC NON-COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR IN NETWORKING In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <445666E6.6020306@isi.edu> REMINDER: This list allows ONLY CFPs for ACM SIGCOMM-sponsored and co-sponsored events and journals (i.e., it includes ToN __ONLY__). This notice below is not appropriate for this list; do not send it (or any other posts like it) again, please. Joe (as list admin) Li (Erran) Li wrote: > CALL FOR PAPERS > IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications > > NON-COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR IN NETWORKING From vern at icir.org Fri May 5 18:39:51 2006 From: vern at icir.org (Vern Paxson) Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 18:39:51 -0700 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers Message-ID: <200605060139.k461dpkl014787@jaguar.icir.org> At the last business meeting we discussed the treatment of papers submitted to SIGCOMM conferences for which shorter papers describing the work in an earlier phase were previously published. Should the extended, full-length papers be evaluated only on their contribution beyond the earlier, short paper? If so, is this done taking into account in some fashion that it's the same set of authors? Or should the full-length submission be evaluated as though the previous paper was simply a technical report? This issue arises because recently SIGCOMM has fostered a number of venues (the workshops affiliated with the annual conference; HotNets; extended-abstract submissions to IMC) that solicit short papers. If publishing these short papers makes the longer version of the paper harder to publish in a high-profile forum such as the SIGCOMM annual conference, then authors will be hesitant to submit, undermining the very purpose of these venues for trying to open up the SIGCOMM community to work in earlier stages. At the meeting, an additional view was expressed (by Emin Gun Sirer, I believe) that discouraging such preliminary short papers is particularly problematic for those doing systems work, for which publishing an early short paper describing the vision of the system can be a highly valuable means to get early feedback on what will be a major ensuing undertaking. This is clearly a cultural issue, in that different research communities apply quite different rules. In addition, clearly SIGCOMM cannot dictate how *other* venues (e.g., INFOCOM) will treat longer versions of papers that appeared earlier in short form in SIGCOMM venues. However, our goal is to at least formulate a public statement about SIGCOMM's stance, which perhaps/hopefully the PCs of such other venues will take into consideration in some fashion. At the business meeting I framed a proposal from the Executive Committee that SIGCOMM adopt a policy of treating earlier, short papers as the same as technical reports. However, this issue proved highly contentious in the ensuing discussion. One of the themes discussed was that overall the problem arises because we *still* lack good venues for work in earlier stages; if our workshops didn't have proceedings, or if they did but thematically they catered to truly wild/rough work for which the delta to a full paper is quite large, then the problem would essentially go away. One of the proposals was for more emphasis on poster presentations. Currently, these are limited to students at the annual conference. What about opening this tract up for broad participation? This year's SIGCOMM PC chairs used a policy that I would summarize as "*if* there's a meaningful delta in a SIGCOMM submission beyond the previous short paper, *then* the submission should be treated as though the short paper had not appeared". To spur discussion with an aim towards converging on a policy in this regard, Jen & I would like to propose that SIGCOMM goes forward with the policy framed by the Executive Committee: treat earlier, short papers the same as technical reports. Do we have a majority of agreement with this? Or proposals for other policies to adopt instead? Vern From douglis at acm.org Sat May 6 07:04:19 2006 From: douglis at acm.org (Fred Douglis) Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 10:04:19 -0400 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers Message-ID: <445CACE3.1060905@acm.org> Vern, I agree that this is indeed a contentious issue, and one with which many conferences struggle, with or without a formal policy in place. Also, your proposal to treat workshops like TRs suggests that everyone has some uniform view of TRs. I was assuming you basically ignore TRs when considering originality... right? I think that was more implicit than explicit in your description, but maybe I missed it. I come down on the side of the current SIGCOMM PC chairs, I guess. I think a workshop paper is to a conference paper as a conference paper is to a journal paper. Most journals won't republish a conference paper verbatim, but expect some increment, which seems to vary depending on the journal. I certainly think that if an author publishes at HotNets, say, and then sends something to the annual SIGCOMM conference that is not a "significant" improvement over the HotNets paper, then it should without question be rejected. WWW2005 a year ago rejected at least one paper based on the observation that it overlapped enormously a workshop paper. There was no previously stated policy other than requiring original submissions and there was a strong consensus that originality required a substantial increment, not just wordsmithing. Fred From touch at ISI.EDU Sat May 6 10:15:28 2006 From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 10:15:28 -0700 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers In-Reply-To: <445CACE3.1060905@acm.org> References: <445CACE3.1060905@acm.org> Message-ID: <445CD9B0.50501@isi.edu> Fred Douglis wrote: > Vern, > > I agree that this is indeed a contentious issue, and one with which many > conferences struggle, with or without a formal policy in place. > > Also, your proposal to treat workshops like TRs suggests that everyone has > some uniform view of TRs. I was assuming you basically ignore TRs when > considering originality... right? I think that was more implicit than > explicit in your description, but maybe I missed it. > > I come down on the side of the current SIGCOMM PC chairs, I guess. I > think a workshop paper is to a conference paper as a conference paper is > to a journal paper. Most journals won't republish a conference paper > verbatim, but expect some increment, which seems to vary depending on the > journal. A slightly different variant occurs when a number of workshop papers is integrated; in that case, the contribution of the conference paper is to put all the work in a single context. The question is whether substantial new work needs to occur for that submission to be considered, and whether it is the total of the work or just the new contribution that is measured. There is also the challenge of how to cite ones own work in a double-blind* review process (*- though the review process is oddly inverted here, where authors are anonymous during submission but reviews are sometimes published with attribution afterwards, but that's another issue). I.e., this problem is amplified by blind authorship. > I certainly think that if an author publishes at HotNets, say, > and then sends something to the annual SIGCOMM conference that is not a > "significant" improvement over the HotNets paper, then it should without > question be rejected. The ACM and IEEE require augmentation to publish work again. The issue is whether the augmentation needs to differentiate the submission -- the ACM and IEEE minimum requirement, which goes beyond wordsmithing but measures the contribution of the work as a whole -- or sufficient _on its own_ to warrant inclusion (which seems to have been the test by a few PCs recently). Joe From jrex at CS.Princeton.EDU Sat May 6 11:37:21 2006 From: jrex at CS.Princeton.EDU (Jennifer Rexford) Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 14:37:21 -0400 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers In-Reply-To: <445CD9B0.50501@isi.edu> References: <445CACE3.1060905@acm.org> <445CD9B0.50501@isi.edu> Message-ID: <445CECE1.8080607@cs.princeton.edu> I think there are two issues getting mixed together a bit here, that would be useful to split apart. First, should we require the longer paper to be a non-trivial delta over the short paper to be considered at a conference? Second, if the long paper is being considered, should it be evaluated based only on the delta or on the entire body of work. In my mind, if the long paper doesn't have a non-trivial delta (e.g., the addition of an evaluation section, prototype, etc.) it's unlikely to be in serious contention at a competitive venue anyway. So, the first question might be viewed as moot in practice. On the second question, I think we should judge the longer paper in its own right -- i.e., giving it credit for whatever spark of an idea that the shorter paper already articulated. In my mind, that's the crux of the question. If we judge the paper only on the part that differs, it discourages work that fleshes out a clever idea, or discourages publishing the spark of the idea in a workshop beforehand. -- Jen > > Fred Douglis wrote: > >>Vern, >> >>I agree that this is indeed a contentious issue, and one with which many >>conferences struggle, with or without a formal policy in place. >> >>Also, your proposal to treat workshops like TRs suggests that everyone has >>some uniform view of TRs. I was assuming you basically ignore TRs when >>considering originality... right? I think that was more implicit than >>explicit in your description, but maybe I missed it. >> >>I come down on the side of the current SIGCOMM PC chairs, I guess. I >>think a workshop paper is to a conference paper as a conference paper is >>to a journal paper. Most journals won't republish a conference paper >>verbatim, but expect some increment, which seems to vary depending on the >>journal. > > > A slightly different variant occurs when a number of workshop papers is > integrated; in that case, the contribution of the conference paper is to > put all the work in a single context. The question is whether > substantial new work needs to occur for that submission to be > considered, and whether it is the total of the work or just the new > contribution that is measured. > > There is also the challenge of how to cite ones own work in a > double-blind* review process (*- though the review process is oddly > inverted here, where authors are anonymous during submission but reviews > are sometimes published with attribution afterwards, but that's another > issue). I.e., this problem is amplified by blind authorship. > > >>I certainly think that if an author publishes at HotNets, say, >>and then sends something to the annual SIGCOMM conference that is not a >>"significant" improvement over the HotNets paper, then it should without >>question be rejected. > > > The ACM and IEEE require augmentation to publish work again. The issue > is whether the augmentation needs to differentiate the submission -- the > ACM and IEEE minimum requirement, which goes beyond wordsmithing but > measures the contribution of the work as a whole -- or sufficient _on > its own_ to warrant inclusion (which seems to have been the test by a > few PCs recently). > > Joe > _______________________________________________ > sigcomm mailing list > sigcomm at postel.org > http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/sigcomm From touch at ISI.EDU Sat May 6 11:46:56 2006 From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 11:46:56 -0700 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers In-Reply-To: <445CECE1.8080607@cs.princeton.edu> References: <445CACE3.1060905@acm.org> <445CD9B0.50501@isi.edu> <445CECE1.8080607@cs.princeton.edu> Message-ID: <445CEF20.4020606@isi.edu> Jennifer Rexford wrote: > I think there are two issues getting mixed together a bit here, that > would be useful to split apart. First, should we require the longer > paper to be a non-trivial delta over the short paper to be considered at > a conference? The ACM already requires this, except with explicit advance permission, FWIW, though the ACM doesn't consider the integration of a set of papers, which IMO is sufficient delta as well. > Second, if the long paper is being considered, should it > be evaluated based only on the delta or on the entire body of work. That seems to be the most important point. > If we judge > the paper only on the part that differs, it discourages work that > fleshes out a clever idea, or discourages publishing the spark of the > idea in a workshop beforehand. And that seems the key - if we judge only on the new work, we seem to be discouraging our own workshops. Joe From guerin at ee.upenn.edu Sat May 6 12:04:42 2006 From: guerin at ee.upenn.edu (Roch Guerin) Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 15:04:42 -0400 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers In-Reply-To: <445CECE1.8080607@cs.princeton.edu> References: <445CACE3.1060905@acm.org> <445CD9B0.50501@isi.edu> <445CECE1.8080607@cs.princeton.edu> Message-ID: <445CF34A.3010503@ee.upenn.edu> Jen, I agreed with the second part but on the condition that the first part be true, which I actually don't think is necessarily a moot point. As was pointed out, there is a wide range of short papers out there, and I know of several workshops that are quite a bit more selective than many conferences, so that even a short paper needs include a reasonably substantial contribution. In my mind it, therefore, really boils down to ensuring that there is a large enough delta between the two submissions. If and when that threshold is crossed, then the paper is eligible for consideration and should be evaluated on its own merit without penalizing it because the earlier submission. My 2c. Roch Jennifer Rexford wrote: > I think there are two issues getting mixed together a bit here, that > would be useful to split apart. First, should we require the longer > paper to be a non-trivial delta over the short paper to be considered at > a conference? Second, if the long paper is being considered, should it > be evaluated based only on the delta or on the entire body of work. > > In my mind, if the long paper doesn't have a non-trivial delta (e.g., > the addition of an evaluation section, prototype, etc.) it's unlikely to > be in serious contention at a competitive venue anyway. So, the first > question might be viewed as moot in practice. On the second question, I > think we should judge the longer paper in its own right -- i.e., giving > it credit for whatever spark of an idea that the shorter paper already > articulated. In my mind, that's the crux of the question. If we judge > the paper only on the part that differs, it discourages work that > fleshes out a clever idea, or discourages publishing the spark of the > idea in a workshop beforehand. > > -- Jen > > >> Fred Douglis wrote: >> >> >>> Vern, >>> >>> I agree that this is indeed a contentious issue, and one with which many >>> conferences struggle, with or without a formal policy in place. >>> >>> Also, your proposal to treat workshops like TRs suggests that everyone has >>> some uniform view of TRs. I was assuming you basically ignore TRs when >>> considering originality... right? I think that was more implicit than >>> explicit in your description, but maybe I missed it. >>> >>> I come down on the side of the current SIGCOMM PC chairs, I guess. I >>> think a workshop paper is to a conference paper as a conference paper is >>> to a journal paper. Most journals won't republish a conference paper >>> verbatim, but expect some increment, which seems to vary depending on the >>> journal. >>> >> A slightly different variant occurs when a number of workshop papers is >> integrated; in that case, the contribution of the conference paper is to >> put all the work in a single context. The question is whether >> substantial new work needs to occur for that submission to be >> considered, and whether it is the total of the work or just the new >> contribution that is measured. >> >> There is also the challenge of how to cite ones own work in a >> double-blind* review process (*- though the review process is oddly >> inverted here, where authors are anonymous during submission but reviews >> are sometimes published with attribution afterwards, but that's another >> issue). I.e., this problem is amplified by blind authorship. >> >> >> >>> I certainly think that if an author publishes at HotNets, say, >>> and then sends something to the annual SIGCOMM conference that is not a >>> "significant" improvement over the HotNets paper, then it should without >>> question be rejected. >>> >> The ACM and IEEE require augmentation to publish work again. The issue >> is whether the augmentation needs to differentiate the submission -- the >> ACM and IEEE minimum requirement, which goes beyond wordsmithing but >> measures the contribution of the work as a whole -- or sufficient _on >> its own_ to warrant inclusion (which seems to have been the test by a >> few PCs recently). >> >> Joe >> _______________________________________________ >> sigcomm mailing list >> sigcomm at postel.org >> http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/sigcomm >> > > _______________________________________________ > sigcomm mailing list > sigcomm at postel.org > http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/sigcomm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.postel.org/pipermail/sigcomm/attachments/20060506/d2d4a836/attachment.html From douglis at acm.org Sat May 6 19:52:33 2006 From: douglis at acm.org (Fred Douglis) Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 22:52:33 -0400 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers Message-ID: <445D60F1.6050403@acm.org> > > In my mind it, therefore, really boils down to ensuring that there is > a large enough delta between the two > submissions. If and when that threshold is crossed, then the paper is > eligible for consideration and should > be evaluated on its own merit without penalizing it because the > earlier submission. I think I misunderstood some of the initial thread from Vern, and the ensuing responses to my reply have been a big help. I too would agree that (a) there has to be a decent delta over previous work, and (b) the ensuing paper does get evaluated on its full merits, not merely the delta. I would also argue (c) a synthesis of multiple workshop papers is not a delta from the sum of the earlier papers and therefore would not merit acceptance. I do think that a sizable chunk of any SIGCOMM paper should be new, unpublished work. Fred From touch at ISI.EDU Sun May 7 11:31:36 2006 From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 11:31:36 -0700 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers In-Reply-To: <445D60F1.6050403@acm.org> References: <445D60F1.6050403@acm.org> Message-ID: <445E3D08.6060009@isi.edu> Fred Douglis wrote: >> In my mind it, therefore, really boils down to ensuring that there is >> a large enough delta between the two >> submissions. If and when that threshold is crossed, then the paper is >> eligible for consideration and should >> be evaluated on its own merit without penalizing it because the >> earlier submission. > I think I misunderstood some of the initial thread from Vern, and the > ensuing responses to my reply have been a big help. I too would agree > that (a) there has to be a decent delta over previous work, and (b) the > ensuing paper does get evaluated on its full merits, not merely the > delta. I would also argue (c) a synthesis of multiple workshop papers > is not a delta from the sum of the earlier papers and therefore would > not merit acceptance. Synthesis should be a delta; it should describe how the pieces fit together, in addition to just concatenating the pieces. > I do think that a sizable chunk of any SIGCOMM > paper should be new, unpublished work. If "sizeable", then we have a new criteria that argues against publishing earlier, preliminary work in workshops (which seems to be the current situation). I.e., it seems more appropriate under the current system to 'spring' research on the community at Sigcomm (easier to anonymize, easier to prove the contribution delta) rather than to vet work at workshops. If that's the case, why bother having workshops? Joe From vern at icir.org Sun May 7 12:41:15 2006 From: vern at icir.org (Vern Paxson) Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 12:41:15 -0700 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 06 May 2006 22:52:33 EDT. Message-ID: <200605071941.k47JfF5j034059@jaguar.icir.org> Apologies for the not-fully-clear kickoff note. In any case, the development of this thread has nudged my thinking towards what you and others have framed, along the lines of: > I too would agree > that (a) there has to be a decent delta over previous work, and (b) the > ensuing paper does get evaluated on its full merits, not merely the > delta. My reading of the discussion is that we have pretty good agreement (among those who have chimed in) on these two, with this one: > I would also argue (c) a synthesis of multiple workshop papers > is not a delta from the sum of the earlier papers and therefore would > not merit acceptance. perhaps not as agreed-upon. On this one, my thinking is in line with yours: > I do think that a sizable chunk of any SIGCOMM > paper should be new, unpublished work. to which I'll follow-up to Joe's comment shortly. Vern From vern at icir.org Sun May 7 12:50:22 2006 From: vern at icir.org (Vern Paxson) Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 12:50:22 -0700 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 07 May 2006 11:31:36 PDT. Message-ID: <200605071950.k47JoMxu034248@jaguar.icir.org> > Synthesis should be a delta; it should describe how the pieces fit > together, in addition to just concatenating the pieces. > > > I do think that a sizable chunk of any SIGCOMM > > paper should be new, unpublished work. > > If "sizeable", then we have a new criteria that argues against > publishing earlier, preliminary work in workshops ... It may be that in fact there's no significant disagreement here. If synthesis is indeed more than just concatenating the pieces, then I agree that the architectural framing is a contribution. Similarly, I expect that "sizeable" will be in-the-eye-of-the-PC, and I imagine that the definition will necessarily be determined on a case-by-case basis. This is imperfect, but hard to remedy if we start (as I believe we should) with the qualitative notion that there needs to be a contribution beyond the workshop paper(s) in order for the prior publication not to be considered against the longer paper. Vern From johnh at ISI.EDU Sun May 7 17:31:12 2006 From: johnh at ISI.EDU (John Heidemann) Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 17:31:12 -0700 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers In-Reply-To: <200605071950.k47JoMxu034248@jaguar.icir.org> Message-ID: <200605080031.k480VCMg002420@dash.isi.edu> On Sun, 07 May 2006 12:50:22 PDT, Vern Paxson wrote: >> Synthesis should be a delta; it should describe how the pieces fit >> together, in addition to just concatenating the pieces. >> >> > I do think that a sizable chunk of any SIGCOMM >> > paper should be new, unpublished work. >> >> If "sizeable", then we have a new criteria that argues against >> publishing earlier, preliminary work in workshops ... > >It may be that in fact there's no significant disagreement here. >If synthesis is indeed more than just concatenating the pieces, then >I agree that the architectural framing is a contribution. Similarly, >I expect that "sizeable" will be in-the-eye-of-the-PC, and I imagine that >the definition will necessarily be determined on a case-by-case basis. >This is imperfect, but hard to remedy if we start (as I believe we should) >with the qualitative notion that there needs to be a contribution beyond >the workshop paper(s) in order for the prior publication not to be considered >against the longer paper. Vern, I heard you describe this at SIGCOMM, and now twice recently on the mailing list, and I keep keep thinking I understand your point, but then hearing something in it that doesn't make sense to me. Let me try to decompose your paragraph above: >It may be that in fact there's no significant disagreement here. >If synthesis is indeed more than just concatenating the pieces, then >I agree that the architectural framing is a contribution. If we call the early papers W1 and W2, and the new paper C, then I take this as saying: C must be W1 + W2 + X where X is something new perhaps X is architectural framing, new application or experiment, or something >Similarly, >I expect that "sizeable" will be in-the-eye-of-the-PC, and I imagine that >the definition will necessarily be determined on a case-by-case basis. >This is imperfect, but hard to remedy if we start (as I believe we should) >with the qualitative notion that there needs to be a contribution beyond >the workshop paper(s)... And what you say here is that the necessary size of X must be determined by the PC. But X > 0. This far, I can fully agree with this policy. And I don't think it represents a policy different than any typical PC or journal. (And ACM and IEEE guidelines that every paper has to have something new about it.) But then you add: >... in order for the prior publication not to be considered >against the longer paper. Or your post that sparked this round of discussion, you said "...SIGCOMM [should] treating earlier, short papers as the same as technical reports." AFAIK everyone regards tech reports as non-publications, so if W1 and W2 are treated as tech reports and are "not to be considered against" C, then the size of X can be 0. (Since if X must be larger-than-0, then W1 and W2 ARE being held against C, in proprotion to the required size of X.) So I'm confused... how am I misreading what you've written? Or if not, which policy are you suggesting SIGCOMM adpot? X>0, or X>=0? The only way I can make sense of what you're saying is to think that "not being held against" means that X can be quite small. I personally think, for conferences, that this must be left to the PC and PC chairs. (Which, actually, you say, too...) I can offer one datapoint, however. The rule-of-thumb for IEEE journal submissions that I was told (by an EIC) is X must be at least 20-30% of the journal submission. For better or worse, the current journal webpage doesn't quantify this, but simply says X must be "substantial". These targets sound reasonable to me for our community's journal-like conferences, provided the ultimate determination is made by the PC. Which, I think it clearly must be, since I think it's pretty hopeless to quantify "contribution". -John From mallman at icir.org Sun May 7 20:00:21 2006 From: mallman at icir.org (Mark Allman) Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 23:00:21 -0400 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers In-Reply-To: <200605080031.k480VCMg002420@dash.isi.edu> Message-ID: <20060508030021.80E38409955@lawyers.icir.org> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://www.postel.org/pipermail/sigcomm/attachments/20060507/bf325359/attachment.ksh -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.postel.org/pipermail/sigcomm/attachments/20060507/bf325359/attachment.bin From vern at icir.org Sun May 7 23:04:22 2006 From: vern at icir.org (Vern Paxson) Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 23:04:22 -0700 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 07 May 2006 23:00:21 EDT. Message-ID: <200605080604.k4864MC6059751@jaguar.icir.org> > What I am hearing is that if X>0 then W1&W2 are not to be held against > C. But, if X=0 then W1&W2 are held against C. Yes, that's the idea I was trying to frame. There are too thresholds: the first is the contribution over the previous work required for the previous work itself to not be counted against the current submission; the second is the contribution required for the current submission to be acceptable. These will differ. > The words are what are getting us in trouble here (e.g., "workshop > paper" even though Vern's initial note explicitly includes short papers > From IM**C**, "tech report" which means My original note was primarily in terms of "short papers", and that's still where I think the line should be drawn. The mention of tech reports was only a (misguided) try at framing how the existence of the previously published short papers should be treated. Vern From mallman at icir.org Mon May 8 05:37:01 2006 From: mallman at icir.org (Mark Allman) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 08:37:01 -0400 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers In-Reply-To: <200605080604.k4864MC6059751@jaguar.icir.org> Message-ID: <20060508123701.EF7D8409C20@lawyers.icir.org> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://www.postel.org/pipermail/sigcomm/attachments/20060508/8cbe49d9/attachment.ksh -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.postel.org/pipermail/sigcomm/attachments/20060508/8cbe49d9/attachment.bin From touch at ISI.EDU Mon May 8 07:44:21 2006 From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 07:44:21 -0700 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers In-Reply-To: <20060508030021.80E38409955@lawyers.icir.org> References: <20060508030021.80E38409955@lawyers.icir.org> Message-ID: <445F5945.8020301@isi.edu> In case there are questions about what either the ACM or IEEE actually requires, here are the policies: http://www.acm.org/sig_volunteer_info/conference_manual/6-2-1PUB.HTM http://www.acm.org/sig_volunteer_info/conference_manual/6-2-2REP.HTM http://www.acm.org/sig_volunteer_info/conference_manual/6-2-3PPP.HTM The ACM policies talk primarily about conferences affecting journals, and do not appear to address workshops. HOWEVER, republication in a journal IS permitted (see 6.2.2) if there is perceived benefit. It isn't clear why the ACM policy on journals vs. conferences doesn't equally apply to workshops vs. conferences, as is done in the IEEE rules: http://www.ieee.org/web/publications/rights/Multi_Sub_Guidelines_Intro.html http://www.ieee.org/web/publications/rights/index.html They permit republication (with attribution and permission), and notably discuss the multiple stages of publication (including workshops). In BOTH the ACM and IEEE cases the issue is benefit to the readership/attendees, and requires only explicit indication of what is republished (and attribution - which is, IMO cannot be handled _by the PC_ appropriately with anonymized authorship). Neither policy _requires_ additional material per se. FWIW, Infocom last year required 'original' submissions, and we followed the approximately 20% rule, but reviewed the contribution of the paper in its entirety (not the new material only). This addressed whether the need for explicit permission for republication applied. Joe From minshall at acm.org Mon May 8 09:31:34 2006 From: minshall at acm.org (Greg Minshall) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 09:31:34 -0700 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 08 May 2006 08:37:01 EDT." <20060508123701.EF7D8409C20@lawyers.icir.org> Message-ID: <20060508163135.0962C171419@open-131-161-253-87.cliq.com> Mark, 2 things. 1. to my knowledge, we are *not* considering "non-referred" papers (which includes tech reports and, as of i last knew, internet drafts). the question is precisely "workshop papers", i.e., papers submitted to a venue for earlier, draftier, less complete work, with reviewing, however. i think everybody's formulation (C-SUMi(Wi) > delta) && (C >> CONST_LPU) makes sense. (where "C" is conference paper contribution; "Wi" is contribution of workshop i paper; ">>" is "much greater than"; "CONST_LPU" is "least publishable unit".) 2. > But, my strongest opinion is that whatever we do we need to be > clear and explicit---which is tough because all the words are > overloaded. network protocols need to be clear and explicit. here, we should think more in the terms of the British admiralty (say) giving instructions to an 18 century captain they wouldn't see for 3 years (in our case, to multitudes of PCs over some small number of years). there needs to be enough flexibility for different PCs to adapt to the needs of their moment. cheers, Greg From touch at ISI.EDU Mon May 8 09:40:03 2006 From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 09:40:03 -0700 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers In-Reply-To: <20060508030021.80E38409955@lawyers.icir.org> References: <20060508030021.80E38409955@lawyers.icir.org> Message-ID: <445F7463.2090409@isi.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mark Allman wrote: ... > The words are what are getting us in trouble here (e.g., "workshop > paper" even though Vern's initial note explicitly includes short papers > From IM**C**, "tech report" which means ... well, what the hell does it > mean?!). There are three different classes of publication to be considered, separate from workshop/conference: 1- tech report 2- participants' proceedings 3- archival (publicly available) proceedings Tech reports are a strange class; for the purposes of credit (attribution, and patents), they ARE considered publications, but for the purposes of republication they are typically not considered. Private participant's proceedings are a middle-ground that are hard to classify; if they're not even available on the web, they could be argued either way. - -- As to workshop vs. conference, the IEEE and ACM guidelines don't talk as much about laddering the classes as whether any document can appear in more than one venue, and that is a matter of benefit to that venue (again, presuming proper citation of prior publication and/or pending submission). Taking work-in-progress or thought-experiment from a workshop or short-paper session at a conference to another conference once fleshed out further seems outside the republication issue, but taking something from one conference to another - even with 20% new material - seems odd to me. Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEX3RjE5f5cImnZrsRAldoAJ0fsQD24hlPTycBgg8XA+a/tmMXiACeLHgh YB+FOCbHUvfQM0UCsLyeIuo= =9G/B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mallman at icir.org Mon May 8 09:46:00 2006 From: mallman at icir.org (Mark Allman) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 12:46:00 -0400 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers In-Reply-To: <20060508163135.0962C171419@open-131-161-253-87.cliq.com> Message-ID: <20060508164600.692EB77AC74@guns.icir.org> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://www.postel.org/pipermail/sigcomm/attachments/20060508/4ed349ad/attachment-0001.ksh -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 188 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.postel.org/pipermail/sigcomm/attachments/20060508/4ed349ad/attachment-0001.bin From mallman at icir.org Mon May 8 09:59:48 2006 From: mallman at icir.org (Mark Allman) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 12:59:48 -0400 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers In-Reply-To: <445F7463.2090409@isi.edu> Message-ID: <20060508165948.21B5F77AC74@guns.icir.org> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://www.postel.org/pipermail/sigcomm/attachments/20060508/0044f0f0/attachment.ksh -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 188 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.postel.org/pipermail/sigcomm/attachments/20060508/0044f0f0/attachment.bin From touch at ISI.EDU Mon May 8 10:11:43 2006 From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 10:11:43 -0700 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers In-Reply-To: <20060508165948.21B5F77AC74@guns.icir.org> References: <20060508165948.21B5F77AC74@guns.icir.org> Message-ID: <445F7BCF.9020706@isi.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Mark Allman wrote: >> but taking something from one conference to another - even with 20% >> new material - seems odd to me. > > I agree. Seems odd to me, too. But, what's the magic that makes it > odd? The labeling of something a "workshop" or a "conference"? > Probably that is it. But, if there is 30% more in a paper from a > "workshop" what makes that different from 30% more from a paper at a > "conference"? > > allman The magic depends on the 20% that's added OR the venue. If it was work in progress and added confirming results, then it seems OK. But to add a second round of confirming results doesn't. I.e., the additional material needs to take the result from preliminary to confirmed, or from specific to general (in the case of integration). As to venue, if the first venue was a workshop and this is a general conference - and the result is of general interest, then it seems OK as well. Taking a Sigcomm white paper (when we had them, but which seem less needed with the workshops there) and publishing it later at IMC seems OK, as does the converse. But taking a regular IMC paper and sending it to Sigcomm doesn't - the next hop ought to be ToN, JSAC, ComNet, etc. Even when IMC was IMW, the paper length and extent was that of a conference, not a workshop, so this seems like republication - which is allowed only when the chairs deem appropriate, not as a general rule. The -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEX3vPE5f5cImnZrsRAgpWAKC6VTtnYYdejEv/sEpuoCjfo7Qr9wCeIjaF fUMovTbvHVotlEesHt4mJNI= =fY9z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From vern at icir.org Mon May 8 10:33:58 2006 From: vern at icir.org (Vern Paxson) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 10:33:58 -0700 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 08 May 2006 12:46:00 EDT. Message-ID: <200605081733.k48HXw25045935@jaguar.icir.org> > But, you noted that we're talking about "workshop papers", Vern used the > term "short papers". How do we treat an IMC 6-pager? It's short, but > it's from a conference. What to do? How about a 10 page paper from the > foobar workshop? It's getting long-ish, but it's from a workshop. > These words ("conference", "workshop", "tech report", etc.) are so > overloaded that it seems to me we ought to just say what we mean (e.g., > "a refereed paper with <= 6 pages" or whatever). A note I received privately today (forwarded with permission): A borderline issue is how to treat papers published in the Allerton conference, which are 12 pages. Many people consider Allerton a venue for rapid publication of early results, but it doesn't meet the "short paper" definition. I don't know what we should do about those, but the community should have some clear guidance about what to expect. which (again) points out that framing a good line to draw is tricky. I wonder if there's an angle whereby the key notion is "preliminary" work, as opposed to short, workshop, or conference. Vern From touch at ISI.EDU Mon May 8 10:50:46 2006 From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 10:50:46 -0700 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers In-Reply-To: <200605081733.k48HXw25045935@jaguar.icir.org> References: <200605081733.k48HXw25045935@jaguar.icir.org> Message-ID: <445F84F6.2010003@isi.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Vern Paxson wrote: >> But, you noted that we're talking about "workshop papers", Vern used the >> term "short papers". How do we treat an IMC 6-pager? It's short, but >> it's from a conference. What to do? How about a 10 page paper from the >> foobar workshop? It's getting long-ish, but it's from a workshop. >> These words ("conference", "workshop", "tech report", etc.) are so >> overloaded that it seems to me we ought to just say what we mean (e.g., >> "a refereed paper with <= 6 pages" or whatever). > > A note I received privately today (forwarded with permission): > > A borderline issue is how to treat papers published in the Allerton > conference, which are 12 pages. Many people consider Allerton a > venue for rapid publication of early results, but it doesn't meet > the "short paper" definition. I don't know what we should do about > those, but the community should have some clear guidance about > what to expect. Allerton has two classes of papers - full and short, where only short papers solicit preliminary results. The word "early" doesn't appear in the CFP (at least a few years of which I checked). It's sufficiently obscure (IMO) that republication in a broader venue should be considered appropriate as well, just as would papers sent to a regional conference. > which (again) points out that framing a good line to draw is tricky. > > I wonder if there's an angle whereby the key notion is "preliminary" work, > as opposed to short, workshop, or conference. Either preliminary or focused on a sub-problem, but with the exception that's already allowed for broader venues. Joe -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEX4T2E5f5cImnZrsRAqyHAKDkqBvDbAe3lbCb1OJ76m+mKQPyfACeITMC L4JLGPbn9PAinBkcbq2pq5Y= =6Np6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From douglis at acm.org Mon May 8 11:07:08 2006 From: douglis at acm.org (Fred Douglis) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 14:07:08 -0400 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers Message-ID: <445F88CC.209@acm.org> > I wonder if there's an angle whereby the key notion is "preliminary" work, > as opposed to short, workshop, or conference. I would absolutely agree with this. Even if something goes to a workshop versus a conference, the identical paper wouldn't be appropriate for another venue. If the earlier one was preliminary and it was expanded, then there should be a good delta. The only real question was whether there are types of publication that shouldn't count in that equation. Internet-drafts and TRs were posed as that sort of semi-publication. Unrefereed (or *very* lightly refereed) publications such as Operating Systems Review would seem to be similar in that sense. Fred From mallman at icir.org Mon May 8 12:54:46 2006 From: mallman at icir.org (Mark Allman) Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 15:54:46 -0400 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers In-Reply-To: <200605081733.k48HXw25045935@jaguar.icir.org> Message-ID: <20060508195447.4B0AA40A356@lawyers.icir.org> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://www.postel.org/pipermail/sigcomm/attachments/20060508/4d21ab4c/attachment.ksh -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 187 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.postel.org/pipermail/sigcomm/attachments/20060508/4d21ab4c/attachment.bin From mtariq at cc.gatech.edu Tue May 9 04:51:39 2006 From: mtariq at cc.gatech.edu (Muhammad Mukarram Bin Tariq) Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 07:51:39 -0400 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers In-Reply-To: <445F88CC.209@acm.org> References: <445F88CC.209@acm.org> Message-ID: <4460824B.5060101@cc.gatech.edu> Another related policy is that of double blind-fold reviewing. Would this policy in any way be changed depending on whether Sigcomm accepts extended papers. As I understand, the current policy requires the authors not to make any material available to public (e.g., on line), or make a citation in a way that would result in obvious loss of anonymity. Similarly, there is the issue of whether the authors are required to cite their earlier work, so that the reviewers can decide whether their is significant "delta" from the previous publishing. If the authors are required to do so, then the issue loops back to anonymity. How should authors cite their previous half-baked work and be able to say that it is their work, published as work in progress, while keeping anonymity. In many cases the work-in-progress publications do contain the bulk of the central idea, and primarily lack in the depth of treatment, so authors ought to be able to claim the idea as theirs (e.g. using a footnote on the title page, declaring that a preliminary version appeared elsewhere), so that the paper does not get shot down because reviewers consider the idea to be a not new one. Thanks, Mukarram Fred Douglis wrote: >> I wonder if there's an angle whereby the key notion is "preliminary" work, >> as opposed to short, workshop, or conference. > I would absolutely agree with this. Even if something goes to a > workshop versus a conference, the identical paper wouldn't be > appropriate for another venue. If the earlier one was preliminary and > it was expanded, then there should be a good delta. > > The only real question was whether there are types of publication that > shouldn't count in that equation. Internet-drafts and TRs were posed as > that sort of semi-publication. Unrefereed (or *very* lightly refereed) > publications such as Operating Systems Review would seem to be similar > in that sense. > > Fred > _______________________________________________ > sigcomm mailing list > sigcomm at postel.org > http://www.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/sigcomm From douglis at acm.org Tue May 9 05:31:47 2006 From: douglis at acm.org (Fred Douglis) Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 08:31:47 -0400 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers Message-ID: <44608BB3.9070802@acm.org> Mukarram, You make an excellent point about double-blind reviewing. It certainly does make it hard to relate the work to earlier publications. I noticed recently that in the DB community, Sam Madden and David Dewitt released a study (http://www.cs.wisc.edu/dbworld/messages/2006-04/1146194156.html) of the impact (actually, the lack thereof) of changing SIGMOD to be double-blind. I commented on it in the SIGOPS forum (http://www.sigops.org/forums/showthread.php?t=30) but it got little comment except from Ken Birman, who said the topic had come up at the SIGOPS business meeting last year. Fred From touch at ISI.EDU Tue May 9 08:43:39 2006 From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 08:43:39 -0700 Subject: [sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers In-Reply-To: <20060508195447.4B0AA40A356@lawyers.icir.org> References: <20060508195447.4B0AA40A356@lawyers.icir.org> Message-ID: <4460B8AB.5090002@isi.edu> Mark Allman wrote: >> I wonder if there's an angle whereby the key notion is "preliminary" >> work, as opposed to short, workshop, or conference. > > Ah - maybe that is it. Maybe the notion is that previously published > preliminary work that is significantly expanded is acceptable for a > conference. And, the review of the conference paper will take into > account the entire paper and not just the delta over the preliminary > version. (I think this is the *notion* we're all sort of talking about, > but we're getting hung up on some of the words.) > > Maybe with this we could encourage PCs to do what SIGCOMM did this year > and ask authors for the pedigree of submissions? E.g., "this work has > never been published". E.g., "the original idea was published in > hotnet04, but has been reworked a little and analytical and experimental > analyses have been added". E.g., "this paper has been circulated in the > community as ICSI tech report 45, but never published". I thought that > was a good idea. The information is then explicit and known to all. Citing one's own work is required by the ACM republication and plagiarism rules. I agree that it is often also useful to include a specific statement as to the pedigree in a footnote or endnote - but that information needs to be available to the reviewers, as well as to the readers in the final version. Joe From weiye at ISI.EDU Tue May 9 10:04:49 2006 From: weiye at ISI.EDU (Wei Ye) Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 10:04:49 -0700 Subject: [sigcomm] ACM SenSys'06 call for posters and demos Message-ID: <1147194290.3705.1.camel@localhost.localdomain> Our Apologies if you have received multiple copies. Wei Ye and Cormac J. Sreenan SenSys'06 Publicity Co-Chairs ------------ ACM SenSys 2006: Call for Posters and Demos The 4th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems Sponsored by ACM SIGCOMM, SIGMOBILE, SIGARCH, SIGOPS, SIGMETRICS and SIGBED; with support from NSF. Boulder, Colorado, USA November 1-3, 2006 http://sensys.acm.org/2006/ CALL FOR POSTERS The poster session will provide a forum for researchers to showcase their work and obtain feedback on ongoing research from knowledgeable conference attendees. Areas of interest are the same as those listed in the technical call for papers. While the poster need not describe completed work, it should report on research for which at least preliminary results are available. We especially encourage submissions by students (that is, for which a student is the first author on the poster). POSTER SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS Poster proposals must be submitted as a single PDF file with no more than 3 pages. The first two pages should contain an abstract describing the research content of the poster, along with title, authors, institutional affiliations and contact information. The third page should contain a thumbnail draft of the poster's contents. Please submit your poster proposal as a PDF e-mail attachment to sensys06-poster-chairs at isi.edu with the subject line reading "Sensys Poster Submission" before the deadline. Any questions for the Poster Co-chairs Henry Tirri (Nokia), Robert Szewczyk (Moteiv) may also be directed to this address. IMPORTANT DATES Three-page poster proposal: 11:59pm (EST), July 24, 2006 Notification of acceptance: August 7, 2006 Camera-ready abstract: August 22, 2006 Conference dates: November 1-3, 2006 BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT POSTERS Two-page poster abstracts will appear in the conference proceedings. Authors of accepted poster proposals will have a chance to present the poster to interested attendees during a special poster session at SenSys. Well-crafted posters will tell the story well by themselves, but authors of posters are expected to be available to describe and discuss the work in the poster during the session. The poster dimensions are 30" by 40", with poster contents mounted on rectangular poster board that we will provide. You may choose a layout consisting of individual sheets of paper, or a monolithic large piece of poster paper (which can be printed at document companies). Henry Tirri, Nokia Robert Szewczyk, Moteiv SenSys 2006 Poster Chairs CALL FOR DEMOS Demonstrations showing innovative research and applications are solicited. SenSys'06 is very interested in demonstrations of technology, platforms, and applications of wireless sensor networks. Two-page abstracts of accepted demos will be published in the SenSys conference proceedings. Submissions from both industries and universities are encouraged. Large-scale, outdoor demos can also be accommodated at the conference facility. For the first time, SenSys 2006 will present a best demo award. DEMO SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS Please send a two-page description of your demo to sensys06-demo-chairs at isi.edu in PDF format by the dates listed below. An additional one page appendix can be included in the initial submission but will be removed in published proceedings. Be as specific as possible in describing what you will show. IMPORTANT DATES Two-page demo descriptions: 11:59pm (EST), July 24, 2006 Notification of acceptance: August 7, 2006 Camera-ready abstract: August 22, 2006 Conference dates: November 1-3, 2006 Chieh-Yih Wan, Intel Labs Jie Liu, Microsoft Research SenSys 2006 Demo Chairs From craig at aland.bbn.com Tue May 9 12:40:03 2006 From: craig at aland.bbn.com (Craig Partridge) Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 15:40:03 -0400 Subject: [sigcomm] double blind Message-ID: <20060509194003.68C2568@aland.bbn.com> Hi Fred: Thanks for sending the pointer to the double blind study. Unfortunately, I'm not sure it says what the authors say it does. (Part of my problem is that it isn't clear what the fractional statistics measure. The claim is that they represent the fraction of papers from 28 prolific authors -- but the fraction is sometimes above 1.0 [so it isn't a proper fraction] yet is too small to be a percentage. They've also got a challenge with a moving base (i.e. the number of papers accepted is not constant and they don't report the number of submissions, so it gets a bit hard to try to normalize figures). So I'm not convinced. Craig From weiye at ISI.EDU Wed May 31 00:59:35 2006 From: weiye at ISI.EDU (Wei Ye) Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 00:59:35 -0700 Subject: [sigcomm] CFP: Workshops at ACM Sensys 2006 Message-ID: <1149062375.3651.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> Our Apologies if you have received multiple copies of the CFP. Wei Ye and Cormac J. Sreenan SenSys'06 Publicity Co-Chairs ------------ CFP: Workshops at ACM Sensys 2006 ACM Sensys 2006 is sponsored by ACM SIGCOMM, SIGMOBILE, SIGARCH, SIGOPS, SIGMETRICS and SIGBED; with support from NSF. http://sensys.acm.org/2006/ -------------------------- Workshop on Distributed Smart Cameras (DSC-06) http://www.iti.tugraz.at/dsc06 Boulder, Colorado, USA October 31, 2006 Scope: Distributed smart cameras combine two concepts: physically distributed cameras and distributed computing. Distributed smart cameras are examples of high-performance multimedia sensor networks. This area brings together researchers in image processing, sensor networks, and embedded system architecture. Several groups are now working on distributed smart cameras, but generally pursuing them in different research communities. This meeting would be the first event to bring together all the research groups working on this problem. We solicit papers addressing theoretical and practical aspects of distributed smart cameras. We particularly encourage submissions describing applications, case studies or deployments. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to: - Distributed embedded systems for video - Smart camera architectures - Collaborative embedded vision - Networking for distributed smart cameras - Multi-sensor systems and sensor fusion - Middleware for distributed smart cameras - Applications of smart cameras in areas such as surveillance, tracking and smart rooms Submission Instructions: We invite authors to submit papers no longer than 5 pages in PDF to dsc06 at iti.tugraz.at. Accepted papers will made available to workshop participants. Demo presentations are welcome. If you plan to present a demo of distributed smart cameras contact the workshop co-chairs. Important Dates: - Paper submission: July 31, 2006 - Notification of acceptance: Sep 15, 2006 - CR paper submission: Sep. 30, 2006 - Workshop: Oct. 31, 2006 Program co-chairs: B. Rinner, TU Graz W. Wolf, Princeton U. Program committee: F. Berry, Univ. Clermont-Ferrand S. Bhattacharyya, U. Maryland M. Bove, MIT Media Lab J. Ferryman, Reading Univ. C. Guestrin, CMU R. Kleihorst, Philips Research X. Koutsoukos, Vanderbilt U. C. Regazzoni, Univ. Genova M. Srivastava, UCLA W. Strasser, Univ. T?bingen -------------------------- First Workshop on World-Sensor-Web (WSW'2006) Mobile Device Centric Sensory Networks and Applications http://www.sensorplanet.org/wsw2006/ Boulder, Colorado, USA October 31, 200 SCOPE The global use of mobile phones on a scale never seen before enables the development of new types of application scenarios. Furthermore, a mobile device centric approach to large-scale sensory networks provides a challenging platform for research purposes. Additionally, connecting sensory networks to the Internet creates endless opportunities for applications and services, new emerging models of operation. The workshop aims to address these aspects, beside traditional sensory network topics such as power management, communication issues, topology management, distributed architectures, peer-to-peer scenarios, etc. Demonstrations and initial ideas are welcome as well. Original, short or position papers (max 5 page), presenting results on both theoretical and practical aspects of large-scale mobile device centric sensor networks are expected. We are particularly interested in prototype descriptions, reports from on-going trials and demonstrations, real-life deployments. Live or videod demos are encouraged. Topics of interest include but are not limited to: - device centric sensory networks - communication strategies and topology control - location and mobility management - power management, energy-efficient design - data gathering, transport, storage, retrieval, mining and dissemination - data analysis and visualisation - modelling and simulation software tools - experimental systems and demonstrations - real-life deployments, middleware implementations - beyond location sensing - intelligent sensors, body sensors and their utilisation - phone as a gateway - end-user aspects, UI issues, use cases - sensory networks and the Web WORKSHOP CO-ORGANIZERS Henry Tirri, Nokia Research Center, Helsinki, Finland Barbara Heikkinen, Nokia Research Center, Helsinki, Finland Boda P?ter, Nokia Research Center, Helsinki, Finland TECHNICAL PROGRAM COMMITTEE Joe Paradiso, MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge, MA, USA Deborah Estrin, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA Gaetano Borriello, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Philippe Bonnet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark Sam Madden, MIT CSAIL, Cambridge, USA Jukka Salminen, Nokia research Center, Helsinki, Finland IMPORTANT DATES Papers due: September 1, 2006 Notification of acceptance September 30, 2006 Camera-ready papers due October 10, 2006 SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS WSW'2006 invites submissions for position papers or short papers on prototype descriptions, early research results, reports from on-going demonstrations, etc. Demonstrations, live or videod, are mostly encouraged. All papers should meet the following formatting rules: 1. Papers should be submitted in PDF format. 2. The maximum length is five pages. The paper size format is US letter, including all text, figures, references, appendices, etc. 3. Two column formatting 4. One-inch margins on all sides 5. Minimum 10-point font size (smaller fonts are acceptable for footnotes, references, and figure captions). Questions, inquiries Please mail to peter dot boda at nokia dot com with subject WSW2006.