From christophe.diot at thomson.net Sun Nov 5 05:49:47 2006 From: christophe.diot at thomson.net (Christophe Diot) Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 14:49:47 +0100 Subject: [sigcomm] ccr comments In-Reply-To: <20061026150913.B87AB3D48C8@guns.icir.org> References: <20061026150913.B87AB3D48C8@guns.icir.org> Message-ID: <454DEBFB.6030706@thomson.net> Mark Allman wrote: > > I have a couple of CCR thoughts, based on that last few CCRs and > triggered by the editor's message in the October issue. Well, and > Christophe said he wanted comments ... yes please. thanks Mark for the comments. and sorry for the delay. I'll try to give short answers as this message might become long and boring :) > (1) Reviewed Articles vs. Editorial Zone let me try to answer to all these points. first remember editorials are experiemental. even the name "editorial" is experimental. its meaning is clear in french but not that obvious in english. if you find a better name, I'm game! We have three different types of editorials: (1) community news, vision, reports, etc., (2) technical report with early ideas seeking for comments, (3) position papers. (1) and (3) are clearly in. You have more concern with (2), as I have too. On one hand, it is not clear that these papers should be in this section as they are technical papers; on the other, they motivate discussion (the best example is the buffer serie -- but there will be 2 more example in the next issue). Now, i dont receive many spontaneous editorials. most are received after solicitation from the editorial board or sigcomm exec committee (therefore, they are submitted as editorials). I think I have rejected two based on feedback from the area editors (maybe 3). I'm surprised you know one of them. the criteria for technical paper is that they are globally right, have at least an idea of interest and could motivate some feedback. again, remember some issues are really tricky to put together for lack of material ! and I'm sorry you find them sub-par. i hope this opinion is not shared by all readers (I know authors of these notes receive feedback and like this opportunity). let me take an example: that's more than a year that i try to get a GENI article but i couldnt get one yet, despite some people promise me one for every issue. So, when i get too close from the deadline, I need to find replacement stuff :-( The size of editorials is flexible. I make a point to limit to 4 pages the size of technical paper to make sure that there is a difference with peer reviewed papers. Some have been longer. again, it depends on multiple factors and when i receive a paper the day of the deadline and it is 2 pages longer, there is nothing I can do. - I think mentioning in each editorial that the document has not been peer reviewed is a very good idea and i'm gonna implement that in the next issue. - another point to be discussed: do we need a separate section for short technical papers? - last, please voice if you think we should stop the short technical papers in CCR I think I have answered all question raised in your message. please tell me if i forgot one. > (2) Not Many Papers It is true that one of the most important constraint in CCR is the short turn around in reviewing process and most of the time authors of accepted papers have two weeks to send their final papers (Not in august though for various reasons). But based on the feedback I receive, that's also why people like CCR. The main reason for the number of papers accepted in each issue is the poor quality of the paper we receive. Sorry, do not ask me to elaborate. We (try to) publish ALL decently written paper with some innovation. In case the paper needs more than 2 weeks of revision, we generally propose the authors to take a month and resubmit to the following issue (which ends delaying the paper publication by 3 months). I hope that answers your questions. I do not want to increase the duration of the cycle. If the next CCR editor wants to do it, he is welcome to :) not clear it will improve the situation. Separate comment about CCR online: CCR Online exists thanks to Moritz steiner and Ernst Biersack. it is a volunteer work and is even more experimental than everything else. Moritz is continuously updating CCR Online based on feedback received from users. He is about to make changes to create new categories, clarify the definition of an editorial, make it easier to submit, etc. We need continuous feedback on that. We also need feedback on the submission policy. Currently, we dont moderate CCR online but ask submitters to register in order to minimize the amount of junk. Again, maybe not optimal, but clearly experimental :) and to conclude, I share your concern for trees. I could find many articles that do not deserve the paper they are printed on. Proceedings are big tree killers (in particular when you get them twice) and I hope CCR will become fully online at some point. christophe disclaimer: nothing here is intended to hurt or insult anyone. If you have a doubt, send me a note. That might simply be a cultural or frenglish issue :-) From mallman at icir.org Sun Nov 5 20:20:03 2006 From: mallman at icir.org (Mark Allman) Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 23:20:03 -0500 Subject: [sigcomm] ccr comments In-Reply-To: <454DEBFB.6030706@thomson.net> Message-ID: <20061106042003.9355A4B5561@lawyers.icir.org> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/sigcomm/attachments/20061105/f6808dcf/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://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/sigcomm/attachments/20061105/f6808dcf/attachment.bin From dovrolis at cc.gatech.edu Sun Nov 5 21:12:16 2006 From: dovrolis at cc.gatech.edu (Constantine Dovrolis) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 00:12:16 -0500 Subject: [sigcomm] ccr comments In-Reply-To: <454DEBFB.6030706@thomson.net> References: <20061026150913.B87AB3D48C8@guns.icir.org> <454DEBFB.6030706@thomson.net> Message-ID: <454EC430.9030604@cc.gatech.edu> I liked Christophe's idea of having an editorial section at CCR, and this is why we wrote two such articles already (even though both articles could be also published, I am sure, at peer-reviewed conferences). This is how I see these "technical editorials": suppose that you read a well-cited peer-reviewed published paper X saying that, for example, all cows are either white or black. You think about it, you do your experiments, and you reach the conclusion that cows can also be brown! What do you do then? You can write one of those big technical papers, 10 or 14 pages long, send it to a conference, and announce your results about brown cows to the community after 6-9 months or more. Another way is to write a short and very focused editorial in the form of a response, basically, to the previously published paper X, giving your argument/objection with their result. Something like a public review, if you like, which is also supported by results though. I think that our publication process needs such published objections/debates/arguments. They can make the process much more healthy and transparent. Today, most objections to published work are either only discussed informally or behind closed doors. In summary, CCR technical editorials are clearly not peer-reviewed contributions. They are technical responses to previous published work. And because they are not peer-reviewed, it is their author(s) that carries the complete responsibility of their content. Not CCR. Now, the open issue with all this is what should the CCR editor do if he receives an editorial that claims, for example, that some cows are green? Or what if he receives 100 editorial submissions for each issue? I do not have a good answer to these questions. Some form of quality control is clearly necessary. But again, I think it is beneficial to have a space in our publication process in which members of the community can publish their arguments and objections to published work in a transparent and technical manner. Constantine -------------------------------------------------------------- Constantine Dovrolis | 218 GCATT | 404-385-4205 Assistant Professor | Networking and Telecommunications Group College of Computing | Georgia Institute of Technology dovrolis at cc.gatech.edu http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fac/Constantinos.Dovrolis/ Christophe Diot wrote: > Mark Allman wrote: > >> >>I have a couple of CCR thoughts, based on that last few CCRs and >>triggered by the editor's message in the October issue. Well, and >>Christophe said he wanted comments ... > > > yes please. thanks Mark for the comments. and sorry for the delay. I'll > try to give short answers as this message might become long and boring :) > > >>(1) Reviewed Articles vs. Editorial Zone > > > let me try to answer to all these points. first remember editorials are > experiemental. even the name "editorial" is experimental. its meaning is > clear in french but not that obvious in english. if you find a better > name, I'm game! We have three different types of editorials: (1) > community news, vision, reports, etc., (2) technical report with early > ideas seeking for comments, (3) position papers. (1) and (3) are clearly > in. You have more concern with (2), as I have too. On one hand, it is > not clear that these papers should be in this section as they are > technical papers; on the other, they motivate discussion (the best > example is the buffer serie -- but there will be 2 more example in the > next issue). > > Now, i dont receive many spontaneous editorials. most are received after > solicitation from the editorial board or sigcomm exec committee > (therefore, they are submitted as editorials). I think I have rejected > two based on feedback from the area editors (maybe 3). I'm surprised you > know one of them. the criteria for technical paper is that they are > globally right, have at least an idea of interest and could motivate > some feedback. again, remember some issues are really tricky to put > together for lack of material ! and I'm sorry you find them sub-par. i > hope this opinion is not shared by all readers (I know authors of these > notes receive feedback and like this opportunity). > > let me take an example: that's more than a year that i try to get a GENI > article but i couldnt get one yet, despite some people promise me one > for every issue. So, when i get too close from the deadline, I need to > find replacement stuff :-( > > The size of editorials is flexible. I make a point to limit to 4 pages > the size of technical paper to make sure that there is a difference with > peer reviewed papers. Some have been longer. again, it depends on > multiple factors and when i receive a paper the day of the deadline and > it is 2 pages longer, there is nothing I can do. > > - I think mentioning in each editorial that the document > has not been peer reviewed is a very good idea and i'm > gonna implement that in the next issue. > > - another point to be discussed: do we need a separate > section for short technical papers? > > - last, please voice if you think we should stop the short > technical papers in CCR > > I think I have answered all question raised in your message. please tell > me if i forgot one. > > >>(2) Not Many Papers > > > It is true that one of the most important constraint in CCR is the short > turn around in reviewing process and most of the time authors of > accepted papers have two weeks to send their final papers (Not in august > though for various reasons). But based on the feedback I receive, that's > also why people like CCR. The main reason for the number of papers > accepted in each issue is the poor quality of the paper we receive. > Sorry, do not ask me to elaborate. We (try to) publish ALL decently > written paper with some innovation. In case the paper needs more than 2 > weeks of revision, we generally propose the authors to take a month and > resubmit to the following issue (which ends delaying the paper > publication by 3 months). > > I hope that answers your questions. I do not want to increase the > duration of the cycle. If the next CCR editor wants to do it, he is > welcome to :) not clear it will improve the situation. > > Separate comment about CCR online: CCR Online exists thanks to Moritz > steiner and Ernst Biersack. it is a volunteer work and is even more > experimental than everything else. Moritz is continuously updating CCR > Online based on feedback received from users. He is about to make > changes to create new categories, clarify the definition of an > editorial, make it easier to submit, etc. We need continuous feedback on > that. We also need feedback on the submission policy. Currently, we dont > moderate CCR online but ask submitters to register in order to minimize > the amount of junk. Again, maybe not optimal, but clearly experimental :) > > and to conclude, I share your concern for trees. I could find many > articles that do not deserve the paper they are printed on. Proceedings > are big tree killers (in particular when you get them twice) and I hope > CCR will become fully online at some point. > > christophe > > disclaimer: nothing here is intended to hurt or insult anyone. If you > have a doubt, send me a note. That might simply be a cultural or > frenglish issue :-) > > _______________________________________________ > sigcomm mailing list > sigcomm at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/sigcomm From mallman at icir.org Mon Nov 6 07:06:58 2006 From: mallman at icir.org (Mark Allman) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 10:06:58 -0500 Subject: [sigcomm] ccr comments In-Reply-To: <454EC430.9030604@cc.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <20061106150658.E04D44B59B2@lawyers.icir.org> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/sigcomm/attachments/20061106/82b1552a/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://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/sigcomm/attachments/20061106/82b1552a/attachment.bin From nicolasc at andrew.cmu.edu Sun Nov 12 16:08:00 2006 From: nicolasc at andrew.cmu.edu (Nicolas Christin) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 09:08:00 +0900 Subject: [sigcomm] Sigcomm Asia Message-ID: <36BD833B-B11A-4E0C-8B76-F83E469F163B@andrew.cmu.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dear all, Forgive me if this has been discussed at length elsewhere, but I was wondering about the general status of the Sigcomm Asia workshop. From what I gathered, the 2005 edition was a success, academically speaking (not sure about the financial aspect), and I was wondering if any follow-up was considered. Despite rising housing prices, I do not yet live under a rock, and know that Sigcomm 2007 will be in Kyoto. (As an aside, everybody who can, should come: besides the fact this is Sigcomm, the place is breathtaking.) However, I was wondering if any more long term activities, e.g., recurring Asia workshops, are planned, or being discussed. Thanks in advance for any pointers. Best regards, Nicolas - -- Nicolas Christin Carnegie Mellon University Faculty, INI - in residence at CyLab Japan; Systems Scientist, CyLab http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/nicolasc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFFV7dnXa/v6n07zyMRAgRDAJ4iLyv5A97lYNJuPuKo1eidr9ugJACfZsYb hy2UHcH54hdfDV5Vko321ss= =ikkB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From lixia at CS.UCLA.EDU Sun Nov 12 21:33:00 2006 From: lixia at CS.UCLA.EDU (Lixia Zhang) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:33:00 -0800 Subject: [sigcomm] Sigcomm Asia In-Reply-To: <36BD833B-B11A-4E0C-8B76-F83E469F163B@andrew.cmu.edu> References: <36BD833B-B11A-4E0C-8B76-F83E469F163B@andrew.cmu.edu> Message-ID: <362AFA60-0733-4F24-8028-F762CE24AEA8@cs.ucla.edu> On Nov 12, 2006, at 4:08 PM, Nicolas Christin wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear all, > > Forgive me if this has been discussed at length elsewhere, but I was > wondering about the general status of the Sigcomm Asia workshop. Hi Nicolas, thanks for the inquiry! Yes the planning is going on/being discussed as we speak regarding next SIGCOMM Asia Workshop. Stay tuned. Lixia > From > what I gathered, the 2005 edition was a success, academically > speaking (not sure about the financial aspect), and I was wondering > if any follow-up was considered. > > Despite rising housing prices, I do not yet live under a rock, and > know that Sigcomm 2007 will be in Kyoto. (As an aside, everybody who > can, should come: besides the fact this is Sigcomm, the place is > breathtaking.) > > However, I was wondering if any more long term activities, e.g., > recurring Asia workshops, are planned, or being discussed. Thanks in > advance for any pointers. > > Best regards, > Nicolas > > - -- > Nicolas Christin > Carnegie Mellon University > Faculty, INI - in residence at CyLab Japan; Systems Scientist, CyLab > http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/nicolasc > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) > > iD8DBQFFV7dnXa/v6n07zyMRAgRDAJ4iLyv5A97lYNJuPuKo1eidr9ugJACfZsYb > hy2UHcH54hdfDV5Vko321ss= > =ikkB > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > sigcomm mailing list > sigcomm at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/sigcomm From jrex at CS.Princeton.EDU Mon Nov 13 18:51:35 2006 From: jrex at CS.Princeton.EDU (Jennifer Rexford) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:51:35 -0500 Subject: [sigcomm] Sigcomm Asia In-Reply-To: <36BD833B-B11A-4E0C-8B76-F83E469F163B@andrew.cmu.edu> Message-ID: <003801c70797$ce563200$6400a8c0@LapCat> Nicholas, Thanks for your interest. We're hoping to be able to have the SIGCOMM Asia workshop again, hopefully in '08 following SIGCOMM'07 in Japan... -- Jen > -----Original Message----- > From: sigcomm-bounces at postel.org > [mailto:sigcomm-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of Nicolas Christin > Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 7:08 PM > To: sigcomm at postel.org > Subject: [sigcomm] Sigcomm Asia > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear all, > > Forgive me if this has been discussed at length elsewhere, > but I was wondering about the general status of the Sigcomm > Asia workshop. From what I gathered, the 2005 edition was a > success, academically speaking (not sure about the financial > aspect), and I was wondering if any follow-up was considered. > > Despite rising housing prices, I do not yet live under a > rock, and know that Sigcomm 2007 will be in Kyoto. (As an > aside, everybody who can, should come: besides the fact this > is Sigcomm, the place is > breathtaking.) > > However, I was wondering if any more long term activities, > e.g., recurring Asia workshops, are planned, or being > discussed. Thanks in advance for any pointers. > > Best regards, > Nicolas > > - -- > Nicolas Christin > Carnegie Mellon University > Faculty, INI - in residence at CyLab Japan; Systems > Scientist, CyLab http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/nicolasc > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) > > iD8DBQFFV7dnXa/v6n07zyMRAgRDAJ4iLyv5A97lYNJuPuKo1eidr9ugJACfZsYb > hy2UHcH54hdfDV5Vko321ss= > =ikkB > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > sigcomm mailing list > sigcomm at postel.org > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/sigcomm > From nicolasc at andrew.cmu.edu Mon Nov 13 21:46:17 2006 From: nicolasc at andrew.cmu.edu (Nicolas Christin) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 14:46:17 +0900 Subject: [sigcomm] Sigcomm Asia In-Reply-To: <003801c70797$ce563200$6400a8c0@LapCat> References: <003801c70797$ce563200$6400a8c0@LapCat> Message-ID: <16A7BF96-FF96-4401-8D0D-86A5BEB3F2B4@andrew.cmu.edu> Jen, That sounds great. Are there any other regional activities going on, or planned, besides the organization of the Asia workshop? Like many, I've noted that there is a lot of interesting research going on in Asia in general, which is seemingly under-represented in ACM publications. Japan is a good example of this - lots of cool ideas published in Japanese journals don't really come to us. This is an old debate about how to best reach out outside of the historically dominant North American market. However, it seems to me that there has been in recent years an increasing number of North America-educated researchers working either in Asia, or in close collaboration with Asian researchers. This is just an impression not substantiated by any hard data, but, if true, this may help bridge the gap... I was wondering if this type of discussion topic was appropriate for this mailing-list and/or if reports on "global" activities of Sigcomm were available somewhere to get a bit more information. Thanks, Nicolas On Nov 14, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Jennifer Rexford wrote: > Nicholas, > > Thanks for your interest. We're hoping to be able to have the > SIGCOMM Asia > workshop again, hopefully in '08 following SIGCOMM'07 in Japan... > > -- Jen > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: sigcomm-bounces at postel.org >> [mailto:sigcomm-bounces at postel.org] On Behalf Of Nicolas Christin >> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 7:08 PM >> To: sigcomm at postel.org >> Subject: [sigcomm] Sigcomm Asia >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Dear all, >> >> Forgive me if this has been discussed at length elsewhere, >> but I was wondering about the general status of the Sigcomm >> Asia workshop. From what I gathered, the 2005 edition was a >> success, academically speaking (not sure about the financial >> aspect), and I was wondering if any follow-up was considered. >> >> Despite rising housing prices, I do not yet live under a >> rock, and know that Sigcomm 2007 will be in Kyoto. (As an >> aside, everybody who can, should come: besides the fact this >> is Sigcomm, the place is >> breathtaking.) >> >> However, I was wondering if any more long term activities, >> e.g., recurring Asia workshops, are planned, or being >> discussed. Thanks in advance for any pointers. >> >> Best regards, >> Nicolas >> >> - -- >> Nicolas Christin >> Carnegie Mellon University >> Faculty, INI - in residence at CyLab Japan; Systems >> Scientist, CyLab http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/nicolasc >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) >> >> iD8DBQFFV7dnXa/v6n07zyMRAgRDAJ4iLyv5A97lYNJuPuKo1eidr9ugJACfZsYb >> hy2UHcH54hdfDV5Vko321ss= >> =ikkB >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> _______________________________________________ >> sigcomm mailing list >> sigcomm at postel.org >> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/sigcomm >> > > From touch at ISI.EDU Tue Nov 14 11:37:58 2006 From: touch at ISI.EDU (Joe Touch) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:37:58 -0800 Subject: [sigcomm] Sigcomm Asia In-Reply-To: <16A7BF96-FF96-4401-8D0D-86A5BEB3F2B4@andrew.cmu.edu> References: <003801c70797$ce563200$6400a8c0@LapCat> <16A7BF96-FF96-4401-8D0D-86A5BEB3F2B4@andrew.cmu.edu> Message-ID: <455A1B16.7040303@isi.edu> Nicolas Christin wrote: > Jen, > > That sounds great. Are there any other regional activities going on, > or planned, besides the organization of the Asia workshop? Sigcomm has a variety of current mechanisms intended to increase international participation: - rotate the Sigcomm conference outside North America Sigcomm began in 1975, and for its first 15 years was in NA Since 1991 in Zurich, it has rotated US-east, US-west, EU and starting in 2007 it rotates US, EU, 'other' where 'other' is global (and our first venture is Kyoto) - develop regional workshops and conferences notably the Sigcomm Latin America workshop and Sigcomm Asia - support global representation at the Sigcomm conference notably through the GeoDiversity travel grant program All are noted on our Sigcomm web pages. This list (sigcomm at postel.org) would be a great place to discuss other ideas as well. Joe -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 250 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/sigcomm/attachments/20061114/44e2896a/signature.bin From fu at cs.uni-goettingen.de Tue Nov 28 05:49:49 2006 From: fu at cs.uni-goettingen.de (Xiaoming Fu) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:49:49 +0100 Subject: [sigcomm] MobiArch'06 program Message-ID: <456C3E7D.8010704@cs.uni-goettingen.de> Dear colleagues, If you are attending GLOBECOM'06 at San Francisco or visiting nearby, please kindly consider joining the MobiArch'06 workshop on Friday. The highlights of this workshop include two keynote addresses given by Charles Perkins and Henning Schulzrinne, as well as one panel session, and 4 technical sessions consisting of 11 peer-reviewed papers selected from 33 submissions, covering various issues on Mobility in the Evolving Internet Architecture: mobility optimizations, higher layer issues, architectural issues in addition to security and privacy. Enclosed please find the technical program for the workshop. We look forward to seeing you on Friday! Best regards, Xiaoming -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MobiArch06_Program.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 15693 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.postel.org/pipermail/sigcomm/attachments/20061128/c88aa50c/MobiArch06_Program.pdf