++++++++++++++++++ FME2001: - Review reports for paper 63 +++++++++++++++++++++ - Dear author(s) : this file was extracted automatically from a very large - mailbox. In case you find any problem concerning mail encodings (or any - other kind of anomaly disturbing your understanding of the reviews) please - email any of the PC cochairs (pamela@research.att.com,jno@di.uminho.pt). ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ PAPER NUMBER: 63 CATEGORY: 2 TITLE: A Formal Model for Reasoning about Adaptive QoS-Enabled Middleware AUTHOR(S): Nalini Venkatasubramanian Carolyn Talcotty Gul Aghaz -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): The paper describes a formal model for middleware software that provides multimedia applications with various kinds of resource management services, under the quality of service requirements. The model describes separately the resources available in a system, what is a QoS-based multimedia service and how to implement such services on the existing resources. The paper also shows how to verify if an implementation satisfies the QoS requirements. 2. RELEVANCE: Please provide a rating of the paper's relevance to the FME Symposium, using the scale: 0 = Out of scope 1 = Marginal interest 2 = Minority interest 3 = Majority interest 4 = Outstanding interest Numeric Rating: 2 Please comment your rating: The paper applies formal methods to a new area. It does not contribute directly to the main theme, which is increasing software productivity with formal methods. 3. OVERALL RECOMMENDATION: Please provide a rating of the paper's acceptability, using the scale: 1 = Strong reject 2 = Weak reject 3 = Could go either way 4 = Weak accept 5 = Strong accept Numeric Rating: 4 NB: There should be a correlation between the two rates above. 4. CONFIDENCE LEVEL: Please provide a rating oof your expertise in the area addressed by the paper, using the scale: 1 = Know virtually nothing about this area 2 = Not too knowledgeable, but I know a bit 3 = Know a moderate amount, about average I'd say 4 = Not my main area of work, but I know a lot about it 5 = My area of work, I know it extremely well Numeric Rating: 3 NB: PC members are responsible for ensuring that 1 is not used here. 5. ORIGINALITY. What is NEW and SIGNIFICANT in the work reported here? Comment: Modeling middleware systems which focus is not on implementation but formal semantics and verification. Presenting models that identify different levels of abstraction for middleware software and enable verification. 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: Application development relies on an increasing number of services provided by middleware. A good place to apply formal verification. 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: It is well explained. 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: Definitions appear to be sound. Four theorems, two presented without proof, two follow from the earlier ones. Proofs are mentioned to be in the full paper, but without reference. It is a bit unfortunate the authors did not decide to express the models with an existing specification language, where verification could be supported by tools. The definition of a computation path (page 3) do not mention the initial configuration. An omission? It is not clear to me what is "refinement" in TLAM, which I suppose is a technical concept with formal definition? The requirements on the existence of a `unique' transition where a given request is accepted for service and completed with a given QoS (5.1), is not clear to me. Shouldn't the model allow to choose non-deterministically betweeith a given QoS (5.1), is not clear to me. Shouldn't the model allow to choose non-deterministically between different providers? Why is it necessary to reject the request when a given QoS cannot be provided `at the time' the request arrives? Shouldn't it depend on the QoS itself? I think some more explanations would be needed. 9. APPLICABILITY. If the work is primarily theoretical or conceptual, are the implications in terms of applicability adequately justified? If the paper is about a new formal technique, are satisfactory arguments presented in favor of the new technique? If a methodology is proposed, is it sound? If experimental results are presented, is their relevance justified? Comment: The work has a potential for applications in practice. The paper mentions the implementation being developed. 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: The writing tends to overload the reader with technical jargon and many new concepts. It is not an easy text to read, at least for somebody who is not an expert in this area. I would like more explanations in "plain English" and examples to illustrate the presentation of the model. 11. Were there any formatting or mechanical problems with this paper?: Are the figures and length acceptable?: Are the references correct?: It should be possible to fit the paper on 20 pages. May be it is unnecessary for the purpose of the paper to present all kinds of services, but just give an example or two. 12. OTHER COMMENTS you believe would be useful to the author(s), including pointers to missing relevant work: +++++++++++++++++++++ End of FME 2001 Paper Review Report ++++++++++++++++++++++ PAPER NUMBER: 63 CATEGORY: 2 TITLE: A Formal Model for Reasoning about Adaptive QoS-Enabled Middleware AUTHOR(S): Nalini Venkatasubramanian Carolyn Talcotty Gul Aghaz -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): The paper propses a formal framework based on actors and addresses the coordination of multimedia resource management services within this framework. Importantly, the paper establishes criteria under which there will be no interference between these services. 2. RELEVANCE: Please provide a rating of the paper's relevance to the FME Symposium, using the scale: 0 = Out of scope 1 = Marginal interest 2 = Minority interest 3 = Majority interest 4 = Outstanding interest Numeric Rating: 2 Please comment your rating: The paper does not (obviously) address the symposium's main theme for this year (Increasing Software Productivity), although it does address the more general scope of using formal methods for the development of adaptive QoS-Enabled Middleware. 3. OVERALL RECOMMENDATION: Please provide a rating of the paper's acceptability, using the scale: 1 = Strong reject 2 = Weak reject 3 = Could go either way 4 = Weak accept 5 = Strong accept Numeric Rating: 4 NB: There should be a correlation between the two rates above. 4. CONFIDENCE LEVEL: Please provide a rating oof your expertise in the area addressed by the paper, using the scale: 1 = Know virtually nothing about this area 2 = Not too knowledgeable, but I know a bit 3 = Know a moderate amount, about average I'd say 4 = Not my main area of work, but I know a lot about it 5 = My area of work, I know it extremely well Numeric Rating: 4 NB: PC members are responsible for ensuring that 1 is not used here. 5. ORIGINALITY. What is NEW and SIGNIFICANT in the work reported here? Comment: The authors have done significant research in this area before and have several cited publications to this effect. Although it is not made explicit, I believe that the co-ordination constraints presented in this paper are new (clarification is needed in the introduction). The research into establishing non-interference criteria is significant (and crucial for the application domain). 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: Good. 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: Well explained, although the conclusions could be stronger. 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: Yes 9. APPLICABILITY. If the work is primarily theoretical or conceptual, are the implications in terms of applicability adequately justified? If the paper is about a new formal technique, are satisfactory arguments presented in favor of the new technique? If a methodology is proposed, is it sound? If experimental results are presented, is their relevance justified? Comment: No, this could be improved. There is a comment in the final section stating that the authors have "indicated how specifications in the framework lead to implementation." This needs further explanation/ expansion for FME. 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: Excellent, but strengthen the conclusions. 11. Were there any formatting or mechanical problems with this paper?: Are the figures and length acceptable?: Figures - yes. Length is 21 pages - on the long side. Are the references correct?: Yes 12. OTHER COMMENTS you believe would be useful to the author(s), including pointers to missing relevant work: - There is no description of potential (or actual) tool support for this work. This could be briefly addressed. - Make it more explicit what is new to this paper (over and above previous work). - Explain how the related work actually relates to the work presented in the paper (rather than just listing other work). - As mentioned above, expand on how specifications can lead to implementation and strengthen the conclusions. +++++++++++++++++++++ End of FME 2001 Paper Review Report ++++++++++++++++++++++ PAPER NUMBER: 63 CATEGORY: 2 TITLE: A formal model for reasoning about adaptive QoS-enabled middleware AUTHOR(S): Venkatasubramanian, Talcott, Agha -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): Modeling and proof techniques related to network middleware, concerned with providing a specified quality of service on top of the raw network. 2. RELEVANCE: Please provide a rating of the paper's relevance to the FME Symposium, using the scale: 0 = Out of scope 1 = Marginal interest 2 = Minority interest 3 = Majority interest 4 = Outstanding interest Numeric Rating: 3 Please comment your rating: 3. OVERALL RECOMMENDATION: Please provide a rating of the paper's acceptability, using the scale: 1 = Strong reject 2 = Weak reject 3 = Could go either way 4 = Weak accept 5 = Strong accept Numeric Rating: 4 NB: There should be a correlation between the two rates above. 4. CONFIDENCE LEVEL: Please provide a rating oof your expertise in the area addressed by the paper, using the scale: 1 = Know virtually nothing about this area 2 = Not too knowledgeable, but I know a bit 3 = Know a moderate amount, about average I'd say 4 = Not my main area of work, but I know a lot about it 5 = My area of work, I know it extremely well Numeric Rating: 4 NB: PC members are responsible for ensuring that 1 is not used here. 5. ORIGINALITY. What is NEW and SIGNIFICANT in the work reported here? Comment: This application area for formal methods is completely original, to my knowledge. 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: This is an interesting new area for formal methods. I particularly like the fact that correctness can be defined at a relatively high level of abstraction. 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: I was disappointed with the proof techniques--hoped for something more elegant from the much-touted actor formalism--but hey, whatever works. 9. APPLICABILITY. If the work is primarily theoretical or conceptual, are the implications in terms of applicability adequately justified? If the paper is about a new formal technique, are satisfactory arguments presented in favor of the new technique? If a methodology is proposed, is it sound? If experimental results are presented, is their relevance justified? Comment: 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: The paper is extremely hard to read. There are layers and layers and pages and pages of jargon. I'm not saying that they are meaningless, but they are far too much for a casual reader to keep straight. With a little thought, I'm sure you could come up with a smaller set of concepts/terms/distinctions that are sufficient for this audience, and simplify the presentation considerably. 11. Were there any formatting or mechanical problems with this paper?: Are the figures and length acceptable?: Are the references correct?: 12. OTHER COMMENTS you believe would be useful to the author(s), including pointers to missing relevant work: +++++++++++++++++++++ End of FME 2001 Paper Review Report ++++++++++++++++++++++