"SHORT: A Static Hybrid Approach for Routing Real Time Applications over Multichannel, Multi-Radio Wireless Networks", Vijay Raman and Nitin Vaidya, WWIC, 2010 ======= Review 1 ======= > *** Contribution: What are the major issues addressed in the paper? Do you consider them important? Comment on the degree of novelty, creativity and technical depth in the paper. This paper presents a routing approach that exploits the benefits of both static and hybrid channel allocation strategies > *** Strengths: What are the major reasons to accept the paper? [1 - 3 sentences] There is a lot of results > *** Relevance: How relevant is the paper to WWIC? Relevant (3) > *** Weaknesses: What are the most important reasons NOT to accept the paper? [1 - 3 sentences] The theoretical/mathematical aspects should be more developed > *** Recommendation: Your overall rating. Strong Accept (5) > *** Detailed comments: Please provide detailed comments that will be helpful to the TPC for assessing the paper, as well as feedback to the authors. The quality of the presentation should be improved Maybe this paper is too long for a conference ======= Review 2 ======= > *** Contribution: What are the major issues addressed in the paper? Do you consider them important? Comment on the degree of novelty, creativity and technical depth in the paper. Contributed in implementing a modified multichannel routing protocol called SHORT, and evaluating its performance with comparisons to other protocols. > *** Strengths: What are the major reasons to accept the paper? [1 - 3 sentences] 1- Implementing a new approach of multichannel routing. 2- Well organisation. 3- Multichannel allocation Methods and Results are explained. > *** Relevance: How relevant is the paper to WWIC? Relevant (3) > *** Weaknesses: What are the most important reasons NOT to accept the paper? [1 - 3 sentences] 1- routing metrics is not defined in the paper. 2- Network size not defined. 3- avg. number of nighbors for each node is not determined. > *** Recommendation: Your overall rating. Strong Accept (5) > *** Detailed comments: Please provide detailed comments that will be helpful to the TPC for assessing the paper, as well as feedback to the authors. The paper contains interesting results and provides explanation to new techniques. The experimental comparison of the SHORT protocol to the three other gives good results. However, more information related to the subject has been refered to as well. It was interesting if the protocols evaluating have been experimented in different network topology, and different number of sources. Routing metrics is not defined here but refered to a reference [5] (see page 3), in reference [5] the metrics is referring to reference [17], which is not available to reviewer. A one paragraph defining the routing metrics is important for readers to understand results. The advantages of static protocol over the fixed protocol was not explained, while the fixed protocol is more similar to the SHORT protocol. Some Error: page 10, observe repeated. page numbers has been repeated twice in most pages. ======= Review 3 ======= > *** Contribution: What are the major issues addressed in the paper? Do you consider them important? Comment on the degree of novelty, creativity and technical depth in the paper. This paper proposes a novel approach to routing real-time applications over multichannel, multihop wireless networks. > *** Strengths: What are the major reasons to accept the paper? [1 - 3 sentences] The new approach reduces the delay without sacrificing the throughput of competing TCP traffic. > *** Relevance: How relevant is the paper to WWIC? Definitely Relevant (4) > *** Weaknesses: What are the most important reasons NOT to accept the paper? [1 - 3 sentences] There are some minor issues with results. > *** Recommendation: Your overall rating. Strong Accept (5) > *** Detailed comments: Please provide detailed comments that will be helpful to the TPC for assessing the paper, as well as feedback to the authors. The existing works for multichannel, multihop wireless networks switch the channels on the wireless radios for high throughput. But this will lead to high-delay, which is not good for real-time applications. The new approach reduces the delay without sacrificing the throughput of competing TCP traffic. The topic is interesting and important. The paper is very well written. There are some minor issues with results. It is said that "The size of the TCP packets on the other hand are uniformly distributed between 500 and 1000 bytes, and are generated at the rate of 1000 packets per second". My question is that TCP connections' sending rates are very sensitive to packet losses and the sender dynamically probes the available bandwidth through AIMD, how can you control the packet sending rate? Also the number of TCP flows are not listed, as this affects the aggregated additive increase speed in the system. Generating packets for 50 seconds seems to be too short, as most phone calls lasts longer than 50 seconds. To compare the results in Figures 11 and 12, we need to bear fairness in mind: if there are n VoIP flows and m TCP flows, ideally udp_thoughput / tcp_thoughput should be close to n/m.