Michael Adeyeye (Ph.D)

I was filled with joy yesterday when Luca told me that our IEEE CCNC paper was accepted. I quickly checked my email for the notification but there was none. So, I logged in to the EDAS website, where I could monitor the paper. Lo and behold,  I saw the paper  indicator turned green (that is,  accepted).  I could only see two reviews, and we are very fortunate to see the paper accepted. My first paper in the IEEE flagship conferences was the IEEE WCNC paper, which I blogged about here and here.

Below are the screenshot of the EDAS site and the reviews.

2 Reviews

Review 1
Quality of presentation:
Good (3)
Originality/Novelty:
Somewhat novel (2)
Your recommendation:
Likely reject (2)

Comments:
(Please provide detailed descriptions that support your scores and your suggestion to the authors if any.)
HTTP mobility requires sharing an object between two computers. Unfortunately, SIP is a poor protocol for sharing an object because both computers need to be running when the object is exchanged — SIP does not provide a way to ‘store’ an object or a message. IMAP would be a superior choice over SIP.

Summary:
(Please describe the main contributions and the key weakness of the paper.)
The choice of SIP requires both hosts to be connected to the Internet for HTTP mobility. This is a weakness not shared by currently deployed HTTP mobility solutions.

Review 2
Quality of presentation:
Good (3)
Originality/Novelty:
Somewhat novel (2)
Your recommendation:
Accept if room (3)

Comments:
(Please provide detailed descriptions that support your scores and your suggestion to the authors if any.)
The paper addresses the interesting area of using SIP signaling / SIP infrastructure elements to support other operations (such as HTTP session mobility) and the exchange of control information necessary for this. The approach is pragmatic and covers both just a “provide the URL / reference information” as well as the transport of session specific data.

Summary:
(Please describe the main contributions and the key weakness of the paper.)
The paper addresses an interesting approach and shows a pragmatic way to implement and test it. The paper is well structured and presented appropriately. It combines a combination of motivation, basis (protocol primitives to be used => please also see below for room for improvement), implementation mechanisms and test / performance evaluation. Whereas effort has been spend on describing the way used for the actual realization, the information given for the actual message exchange (see Figure 1) is less specific (which methods are actually used for the transport of the data exchanged between the HTTP clients?). Also – using SIP and its infrastructure would benefit a lot from using existing call routing setups + the ability of using existing “chains” of multiple SIP proxy / redirect servers. A discussion of the implications of trying to achieve this would potentially extend the scope / potential impact of the approach.

I am still thinking about the first reviewer’s comment that IMAP is more appropriate than SIP. But for now, am excited!!