kumoh national institute of technology
Networked Systems Lab.

Review

NSL > Education> Review
Iyoga-[CCNC 2017]
By :
Date : 2016-10-26
Views : 142

===========================================================================
======= Review 1 =======

> *** Overall Rating: What is your overall recommendation for the paper?
Strong Reject (>75%) (0)

> *** Relevance: How relevant is the topic of this paper to CCNC?
Slightly not relevant (1)

> *** Novelty: How novel is the approach/topic presented in the paper?
Some novel component (2)

> *** Technical Strength: Is the paper technically sound and correct
Minor flaws but conclusions are still believable (2)

> *** Presentation: What is the quality of presentation of the paper?
The paper can benefit from significant revision (2)

> *** Reviewer Confidence: How comfortable are you in the review decision?
Somewhat comfortable reviewing (but not my area) (1)

> *** Short Summary: Please give a short summary of the paper

This paper presents an analysis behaviour of messages when RabbitMQ is used as a broker. In particular, the presented work focuses on the message behaviour once the sender wants to send a message to the consumer. A simulation has been set up with the aim of evaluating exchange and queing module performances.
The paper is generally well-structured, but it is not so easy to read.
Actually, the main issue of this paper is that it is completely out of topic for this workshop.

> *** Main Strengths (Reasons to Accept): What are the main arguments to accept the paper?

The paper is generally well-structured and it investigates a trendy topic.

> *** Main Weaknesses (Reasons to reject): What are the main arguments to reject the paper?

English should be improved, since the paper is not easy to read.
Actually the main failure of this paper is that it is totally out of the scope of the workshop, hence it cannot be accepted.

> *** Detailed Comments: Please input additional detailed comments below.

English should be improved, typos and grammar issue should be fixed.
But the main issue with this paper is that it is out of the topics of the workshop. For this reason it cannot be accepted.

======= Review 2 =======

> *** Overall Rating: What is your overall recommendation for the paper?
Strong Reject (>75%) (0)

> *** Relevance: How relevant is the topic of this paper to CCNC?
Slightly not relevant (1)

> *** Novelty: How novel is the approach/topic presented in the paper?
Some novel component (2)

> *** Technical Strength: Is the paper technically sound and correct
Minor flaws but conclusions are still believable (2)

> *** Presentation: What is the quality of presentation of the paper?
The paper can benefit from significant revision (2)

> *** Reviewer Confidence: How comfortable are you in the review decision?
Somewhat comfortable reviewing (but not my area) (1)

> *** Short Summary: Please give a short summary of the paper

This paper analyzes the behavior of messages from produces to consumer in Message Oriented Middleware (MOM) context through different protocols. In particular, this paper is focused on RabbitMQ and is used as broker message. A simulation has been set up for estimate exchange and queing module performances.
Well-structured paper but is completely out of topic for this workshop.

> *** Main Strengths (Reasons to Accept): What are the main arguments to accept the paper?

The paper is well-organized but this work is out of the scope of this workshop.

> *** Main Weaknesses (Reasons to reject): What are the main arguments to reject the paper?

The paper presents some weakness in the use of the English language and is unrelated to the main topic of the workshop.

> *** Detailed Comments: Please input additional detailed comments below.

The paper is completely out of topic, this is the main issue. For this reason it cannot be accepted.

======= Review 3 =======

> *** Overall Rating: What is your overall recommendation for the paper?
Strong Reject (>75%) (0)

> *** Relevance: How relevant is the topic of this paper to CCNC?
Not relevant (0)

> *** Novelty: How novel is the approach/topic presented in the paper?
Minor tweak of prior schemes (1)

> *** Technical Strength: Is the paper technically sound and correct
Significant flaws that may call key result of the paper into question (1)

> *** Presentation: What is the quality of presentation of the paper?
The paper can benefit from significant revision (2)

> *** Reviewer Confidence: How comfortable are you in the review decision?
Somewhat comfortable reviewing (but not my area) (1)

> *** Short Summary: Please give a short summary of the paper

This paper is an extended study from previous work of comparison performance between amqp and mqtt protocols. The topic has no relations with the workshop.

> *** Main Strengths (Reasons to Accept): What are the main arguments to accept the paper?

There are no reasons to accept the paper because the topic has no relations with the workshop.

> *** Main Weaknesses (Reasons to reject): What are the main arguments to reject the paper?

The topic has no relations with the workshop and this is its main weakness.

> *** Detailed Comments: Please input additional detailed comments below.

No detailed comments because the topic has no relations with the workshop.
 
Ʒ ̺
     Iyoga-[CCNC 2017]
Ʒ  Seung-Pyo An-[KICS]