[sigcomm] considerations for reviewing extended papers

[Vern Paxson]

> 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 paper should be new, unpublished work.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