From - Wed Sep 9 09:27:09 1998 Return-Path: Received: from earth.ipass.net by aspen.cs.unr.edu (8.8.8/1.34-UNR-sd-ptp-1.00) id LAA13077; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 11:11:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from s102171 (ts2-97-ppp.ipass.net [207.120.205.97]) by earth.ipass.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA04783 for ; Fri, 26 Jun 1998 14:12:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980626140713.00931100@ipass.net> X-Sender: isca@ipass.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 14:07:13 -0500 To: fredh From: Mary Ann Sullivan Subject: PDCS-98, Paper Code #100-123 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Status: $$$$ X-UID: 0000000023 X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 Status: OR June 26, 1998 Dr. Frederick C. Harris, Jr. University of Nevada, Reno Dept. of Computer Science Reno, NV 89557 Dear Dr. Harris: I am sorry to inform you that your paper entitled "A Low-Cost Algorithm for Multicast Routing," submitted for the 11th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Computing Systems (PDCS-98), was not recommended for presentation at the conference. We had a large number of submissions this year and we could only accept a limited number of papers for presentation at the conference. Enclosed you will find the reviewers' comments for your paper. This feedback may be helpful in rewriting your paper for eventual submission to other conferences. I hope you will plan to attend the conference in September. For more information about the conference program, attendee registration, hotel, etc., please see the ISCA web page: http://www.isca-hq.org/confr.htm . Sincerely, Omran Bukhres PDCS-98 Program Co-Chair Computer Science Department Purdue University School of Science 723 W. Michigan Street, 280 Indianapolis, Indiana 46202 E-mail: bukhres@cs.iupui.edu ============================================================================ ==== REVIEWER's COMMENTS: Reject. -----------------------------Referee 1------------------------------------- __________________________________________________________________ The 11th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Computing Systems, September 2-4, 1998 Days Inn Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois USA PDCS98 Reviewer's Report ___________________________________________________________________ Paper Number: 100-123 Date Sent to Referee: ____________ Paper Title: A low-cost algorithm for multicast routing Author(s): P. Tan and F. C. Harris Please Rate the Paper: Excellent Good Fair Poor Originality: ___ ___ _X_ ___ Significance: ___ ___ _X_ ___ Technical soundness: ___ ___ _X_ ___ Written organization: ___ ___ _X_ ___ Interest to attendees: ___ ___ ___ ___ Recommendation (please select an appropriate number): 1. Must Accept (award quality) 2. Clear Accept 3. Probable Accept 4. Should Reject 5. Must Reject *** 4. Should reject *** Confidence in evaluation: 1 (low confidence) to 5 (high confidence) _5_ Comments to the Author to explain ratings and recommendation: The authors discuss yet another multicast routing algorithm in computer networks. Unfortunately, the idea of the algorithm is not new and has been put forth, in various variant, by Prof. Ni and his students. It is somewhat surprising that the authors do not cite those results. Actually, the mosr recent reference that the authors cite goes back to 1995. Since then a lot of work has been done in this area and the authors should become familiar with the literature before submitting a paper and claiming new results. Unfortunately, this paper does not contain anything new and should be rejected. -----------------------------Referee 2------------------------------------- The 11th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Computing Systems, September 2-4, 1998 Days Inn Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois USA PDCS98 Reviewer's Report ___________________________________________________________________ Paper Number: ____100-123_______ Date Sent to Referee: MAy 28, 1998 Paper Title: A Low-Cost Algorithm for Multicast Routing Author(s): Pingyan Tan and Fredrick Harris Please Rate the Paper: Excellent Good Fair Poor Originality: ___ ___ _X_ ___ Significance: ___ ___ _X_ ___ Technical soundness: ___ _X_ ___ ___ Written organization: ___ _X_ ___ ___ Interest to attendees: ___ ___ _X_ ___ Recommendation (please select an appropriate number): 3-4 weak accept/reject 1. Must Accept (award quality) 2. Clear Accept 3. Probable Accept 4. Should Reject 5. Must Reject Confidence in evaluation: 1 (low confidence) to 5 (high confidence) _4_ Comments to the Author to explain ratings and recommendation: The paper introduced yet another multicast algorithm. The relevance of the model comes into question: It assumes that there is some sort of weight or distance that can be obtained, although it's not at all clear how or what this is in an internet environment, nor that it would be static (even for the life of the multicast). The results are compared with the authors' simulation of a shortest-path multicast. Why not compare with an optimal multicast (heuristics allow computation of a Steiner tree for even moderate sized networks)? All in all, the study is not deep and it's difficult to see how the results provide a substantial contribution. -----------------------------Referee 3------------------------------------- __________________________________________________________________ The 11th International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Computing Systems, September 2-4, 1998 Days Inn Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois USA PDCS98 Reviewer's Report ___________________________________________________________________ Paper Number: __100-123___________ Date Sent to Referee: ____________ Paper Title: A Low-Cost Algorithm for Multicast Routing Author(s): Pingyan Tan and Frederick C. Harris, Jr. Please Rate the Paper: Excellent Good Fair Poor Originality: ___ _x_ ___ ___ Significance: ___ _x_ ___ ___ Technical soundness: ___ ___ _x_ ___ Written organization: ___ ___ _x_ ___ Interest to attendees: ___ _x_ ___ ___ Recommendation (please select an appropriate number): 3 1. Must Accept (award quality) 2. Clear Accept 3. Probable Accept 4. Should Reject 5. Must Reject Confidence in evaluation: 1 (low confidence) to 5 (high confidence) _5_ Comments to the Author to explain ratings and recommendation: It was stated that the complexity of the algorithms is linear without any proof. It seems the algorithm is not linear as stated. That can be shown as follows. In step 3 of the algorithm, computing each D_j requires O(|G|) steps. Because in the worst case there can be O(|G|) D_j's and the algorithm may loop O(|G|) times, the time complexity of the algorithm seems to be O(|G|^3). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------