REVIEWERS ARE ENCOURAGED TO PROVIDE SUBSTANTITIVE 
COMMENTS SUPPORTING THEIR NUMERICAL SCALE RATINGS.
REVIEWS WITHOUT SUCH COMMENTS MAY NOT BE
CONSIDERED IN THE OVERALL RATING OF THE PAPER.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Name and email address: 



Please assess your competence in the subject matter 
of the paper by placing an X in the appropriate box:

   _____________________________________________________
   |  Marginal  |  General   |  Strong    |  Expert    |
   |   (0.4)    |   (0.6)    |   (0.8)    |   (1.0)    |
   |____________|____________|____________|____________|
   |____________|____________|____________|____________|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAPER #:
Title of the Paper: 
Author(s): 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Rating Category    Your Rating       Scale Definition
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation of Work              5=Excellent work and a major
contribution
and Contribution     |-----|    4=Good solid work of some importance
                     |     |    3=Solid work but marginal contribution
                     |-----|    2=Marginal work and very minor
contribution
                                1=Very questionable work and
contribution
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originality                     5=Highly original work
Novelty              |-----|    4=Contains an original contribution
                     |     |    3=Somewhat original 
                     |-----|    2=Variation of a known concept 
                                1=Complete lack of original ideas
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significance                    5=Excellent
of the Topic         |-----|    4=Very Good
                     |     |    3=Good
                     |-----|    2=YAPA (yet another paper about...)
                                1=Obsolete Topic
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quality of                      5=Very good
Presentation         |-----|    4=Basically well written
                     |     |    3=Readable
                     |-----|    2=Needs considerable work
                                1=Unacceptably bad
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical                       5=Very good
Correctness          |-----|    4=Good
                     |     |    3=Flaws but Easy to Correct 
                     |-----|    2=Some Flaws
                                1=Unacceptably bad
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level of                        5=Excellent
Reader Interest      |-----|    4=Very Good
                     |     |    3=Good
                     |-----|    2=Fair 
                                1=Poor
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Practical Utility               5=Excellent
                     |-----|    4=Very Good
                     |     |    3=Good
                     |-----|    2=Fair
                                1=Poor
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relevance to                    5=Excellent
INFOCOM              |-----|    4=Very Good
                     |     |    3=Good
                     |-----|    2=Weak 
                                1=Totally out of Scope 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future Importance               5=An emerging important area
to INFOCOM           |-----|    4=A strong area for the foreseeable
future
                     |     |    3=An important and timely topic
                     |-----|    2=An emerging area of possible relevance
                                1=An area of diminishing interest 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall                         5=Strong Accept (very good quality)
Rating               |-----|    4=Accept (good quality)
                     |     |    3=Accept if room (marginal quality)
                     |-----|    2=Likely reject (low quality)
                                1=Definitely reject (has no merit)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments (to be returned to the author(s))

1. WHAT, in your opinion, are the most original contributions of this
paper?



2. WHAT, in your opinion, is the significance of the paper?  What
aspects of
   the paper are likely to be used by other researchers and/or
practitioners?


3. What was the most challenging, but important, thing to understand
about the paper? Give an example of the concept, what your confusions
were/are, and why it is important. (In other words, dont choose
something that was challenging because it was poorly explained, but is
also not important. Choose something that IS important but that was a
difficult concept to grasp)

4 Please detail any technical errors, uncited related work, and/or ways
in
   which the technical material could be improved.
 


5. Any additional comments for the authors (e.g., how might the paper be 
   further improved beyond 1--3 above?).


6. Do you think this paper should be included in next year's DSD class?



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary
Please summarize the paper in your own words (~100 words) and very few
sentences




---------------------------------------------------------------------------