Robert Beverly
A middlebox-cooperative TCP for a non end-to-end internet
Appears in:
CCR August 2014 Understanding, measuring, and debugging IP networks, particularly across administrative domains, is challenging. One particularly daunting aspect of the challenge is the presence of transparent middleboxes—which are now common in today’s Internet. In-path middleboxes that modify packet headers are typically transparent to a TCP, yet can impact end-to-end performance or cause blackholes. We develop TCP HICCUPS to reveal packet header manipulation to both endpoints of a TCP connection.
Findings and implications from data mining the IMC review process
Appears in:
CCR January 2013 The computer science research paper review process is largely human and time-intensive. More worrisome, review processes are frequently questioned, and often non-transparent. This work advocates applying computer science methods and tools to the computer science review process. As an initial exploration, we data mine the submissions, bids, reviews, and decisions from a recent top-tier computer networking conference. We empirically test several common hypotheses, including the existence of readability, citation, call-for-paper adherence, and topical bias.
Public Review By:
Sharad Agarwal The debate on how to improve the conference paper review process rages on. This highly competitive, manual and lengthy process can have a big impact on the dissemination of new ideas, and author morale and careers. The goal of this paper is to encourage our community to analyze data on the review process, both during and after the review process, to help expose and/or correct biases (or lack thereof). This paper analyzes review data from ACM Internet Measurement Conference 2010. The authors find there is no bias with respect to readability, nor reviewer bidding scores. However, they find a topic bias and a citation bias, neither of which I find surprising and both are likely benign. We have to treat the findings with care. This paper uses only one conference's data. The cause of any bias (or lack of bias) has not been uncovered, though that is not a stated goal of the paper. The paper is far from comprehensive in exploring all possible biases. Individual analyses can be improved -- for example, language sophistication is probably not a best fit for technical papers. I expect this paper will generate discussion in the ACM SIGCOMM community. I hope there will be follow-on work by TPC chairs of other conferences and workshops. At the very least, we can help novice authors better understand with objective metrics what the bar is for different venues. We can take solace in knowing that no immediate cause for alarm has been identified in this paper.
Download:
PDF (538 KB) The 2nd Workshop on Active Internet Measurements (AIMS-2) Report
Appears in:
CCR October 2010 On February 8-10, 2010, CAIDA hosted the second Workshop on Active Internet Measurements (AIMS-2) as part of our series of Internet Statistics and Metrics Analysis (ISMA) workshops. The goals of this workshop were to further our understanding of the potential and limitations of active measurement research and infrastructure in the wide-area Internet, and to promote cooperative solutions and coordinated strategies to addressing future data needs of the network and security research communities.
Download:
PDF (320 KB) The workshop on active internet measurements (AIMS) report
Appears in:
CCR October 2009 Measuring the global Internet is a perpetually challenging task for technical, economic and policy reasons, which leaves scientists as well as policymakers navigating critical questions in their field with little if any empirical grounding. On February 12-13, 2009, CAIDA hosted the Workshop on Active Internet Measurements (AIMS) as part of our series of Internet Statistics and Metrics Analysis (ISMA) workshops which provide a venue for researchers, operators, and policymakers to exchange ideas and perspectives.
Download:
PDF (124.1 KB) 