[sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers

[Vern Paxson]

> 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