The October 2016 issue

This issue of Computer Communication Review comes a bit late due to delays in organisation the preparation of the final version of the articles to be published on the ACM Digital Library. Anyway, these page layout problems are now solved and this issue contains four technical articles and three editorials. The first technical article, Recursive SDN for Carrier Networks, proposes a recursive routing computation framework that could be applied to Software Defined Networks. The three other technical articles were selected as the best papers presented at three SIGCOMM’16 workshops. The first one, Measuring the Quality of Experience of Web users, was presented at the Internet-QoE ’16 workshop. It proposes and analyses tools to assess the Quality of Experience of web services. The second article, Latency Measurement as a Virtualized Network Function using Metherxis, was presented at the LANCOMM’16 workshop. It proposes and evaluates a system to conduct latency measurements. The third article, CliMB: Enabling Network Function Composition with Click Middleboxes, was presented at the HotMiddlebox’16 workshop. It proposes a modular implementation of TCP for Click.

This issue contains three editorial contributions. Two of these editorials are reports from workshops related to Internet measurements. The first one, The 8th Workshop on Active Internet Measurements (AIMS-8) Report, summarises the results of the Active Internet Measurements workshop that was held in February 2016. The second one, Report from the 6th PhD School on Traffic Monitoring and Analysis (TMA), summarises a doctoral school that was held in April 2016. Finally, “Resource Pooling” for Wireless Networks: Solutions for the Developing World is a position paper that argues for the utilisation of the resource pooling principle when designing network solutions in developing countries.

Before jumping to those papers, I’d like to point several important changes to the Computer Communication Review submission process. These changes were already announced during the community feedback session at SIGCOMM’16. CCR continues to accept both editorial submissions and technical papers. The main change affects the technical papers. There have been many discussions in our community and elsewhere on the reproducibility of research results. SIGCOMM has already taken some actions to encourage the reproducibility of research results. A well-known example is the best dataset award at the Internet Measurements Conference. CCR will go one step further by accepting technical papers that are longer than six pages provided that these papers are replicable. According to the recently accepted ACM Policy on Result and Artifact Review and Badging, CCR will consider a paper as replicable if other researcher can obtain similar results as the authors of the paper by using the artifacts (software, dataset, …) used by the original authors of the paper. This implies that the authors of long papers will have to release the artifacts that are required to replicate most of the results of the papers. For these replicable papers, there is no a priori page limit, but the acceptance bar will grow with the paper length. Those replicable papers will be reviewed in two phases. The first phase will consider the technical merits of the paper, without analysing the provided artifacts. If the outcome of this first phase is positive, then the artifacts will be evaluated and papers will be tagged with the badges defined by the ACM Policy on Result and Artifact Review and Badging. The public review for the replicable papers will contain a summary of the technical reviews and a summary of the evaluation of the artifacts.

In the long term, replicable papers are important for our community because the availability of the artifacts will encourage other researchers to expand and improve the work. The first who will benefit from replicable papers are our readers who will have access to more information about each published papers. However, authors will probably complain a bit because, it takes more time to write a paper that contains all the associated artifacts than the standalone text. On the other hand, authors can expect more impact from their replicable papers since it will be easier for other researchers to use, expand and cite their work. Reviewers could also complain because the assessing paper artifacts requires more time than assessing a written paper. It is clear that assessing research artifacts will be easier for papers that describe simulation results than for papers describing a system that combines hardware and software prototypes or has already been deployed at a large scale. As a community, we will need to work together to define criteria to correctly assess paper artifacts in our different subdomains. If you’d like to participate in the evaluation of paper artifacts, please contact me by email at
Olivier Bonaventure
CCR Editor


  1. Pingback:
  2. Pingback: new siriustube655
  3. Pingback: comment810
  4. Pingback: comment634
  5. Pingback: comment538
  6. Pingback: comment90
  7. Pingback: comment850
  8. Pingback: comment390
  9. Pingback: comment453
  10. Pingback: comment25
  11. Pingback: comment779
  12. Pingback: comment977
  13. Pingback: comment605
  14. Pingback: comment895
  15. Pingback: comment633
  16. Pingback: comment183
  17. Pingback: comment524
  18. Pingback: comment956
  19. Pingback: comment15
  20. Pingback: comment47
  21. Pingback: comment698
  22. Pingback: comment622
  23. Pingback: comment422
  24. Pingback: comment811
  25. Pingback: comment457
  26. Pingback: comment257
  27. Pingback: comment846
  28. Pingback: comment54
  29. Pingback: comment692
  30. Pingback: comment172
  31. Pingback: comment626
  32. Pingback: comment202
  33. Pingback: comment632
  34. Pingback: comment209
  35. Pingback: comment732
  36. Pingback: comment919
  37. Pingback: comment513
  38. Pingback: comment969
  39. Pingback: comment196
  40. Pingback: comment296
  41. Pingback: comment469
  42. Pingback: comment46
  43. Pingback: comment484
  44. Pingback: comment191
  45. Pingback: comment495
  46. Pingback: comment848
  47. Pingback: comment727
  48. Pingback: comment144
  49. Pingback: comment379
  50. Pingback: comment226
  51. Pingback: comment738
  52. Pingback: comment436
  53. Pingback: comment148
  54. Pingback: comment866
  55. Pingback: read
  56. Pingback:
  57. Pingback: 76562RAs1Uj
  58. Pingback:
  59. Pingback:
  60. Pingback: click here
  61. Pingback: worst
  62. Pingback: ivanpopov
  63. Pingback: namnamananame
  64. Pingback: namnam ananame
  65. Pingback: buy cialis
  66. Pingback: buy cialis

Leave a Reply