| ²é¿´: 2018 | »Ø¸´: 12 | |||
| µ±Ç°Ö»ÏÔʾÂú×ãÖ¸¶¨Ìõ¼þµÄ»ØÌû£¬µã»÷ÕâÀï²é¿´±¾»°ÌâµÄËùÓлØÌû | |||
°ÔÍõ±ð¼§Ä¾³æ (ÕýʽдÊÖ)
|
[½»Á÷]
globecom2012±»¾Ü·´À¡Òâ¼û ÒÑÓÐ6È˲ÎÓë
|
||
|
> *** Relevance and timeliness: Rate the importance and timeliness of the topic addressed in the paper within its area of research. Good (4) > *** Technical content and scientific rigour: Rate the technical content of the paper (e.g.: completeness of the analysis or simulation study, thoroughness of the treatise, accuracy of the models, etc.), its soundness and scientific rigour. Solid work of notable importance. (4) > *** Novelty and originality: Rate the novelty and originality of the ideas or results presented in the paper. Some interesting ideas and results on a subject well investigated. (3) > *** Quality of presentation: Rate the paper organization, the clearness of text and figures, the completeness and accuracy of references. Readable, but revision is needed in some parts. (3) > *** Strong aspects: Comments to the author: what are the strong aspects of the paper Timely and useful. The paper's main contribution, despite the claim in the introduction, is the ability to compose chains of caches together to evaluate their performance. > *** Weak aspects: Comments to the author: what are the weak aspects of the paper? First, this reviewer must ask if nothing similar has been done in the CDN (Content Distribution Network) community? There must be a wealth of information and related work from that space. * A few references are missing from experimental networks, with space available. * Writing is very inconsistent. In places it is fluid and elegant. In others it is barely comprehensible. * RVRTT assumes knowledge. Some explanation and examples are required. * Some equations lack intuition/explanation, for example (2) and (3). Also, D in (1) is not defined. * Section IV is the main contribution of this paper, yet it is the most difficult to comprehend given the amount of missing information. * FIgure 4b. Despite claim, there is no statistical difference between these curves. Also, why the fall in probability after k=3? > *** Recommended changes: Recommended changes. Please indicate any changes that should be made to the paper if accepted. * Address above issues, with focus on the RVRTT issue. * Reduce use of 'Clearly' - rarely do statements and observations so clearly emerge. * No appendices, as claimed. ºóÃæÀ¨ºÅÀïµÄÊý×ÖʲôÒâ˼£¿ |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸»ªÖпƼ¼´óѧ071000£¬Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
279·ÖÇóµ÷¼Á Ò»Ö¾Ô¸211
ÒѾÓÐ14È˻ظ´
332Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
0856²ÄÁÏר˶353Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
²ÄÁÏѧѧ˶080502 337Çóµ÷¼Á-Ò»Ö¾Ô¸»ªÖпƼ¼´óѧ
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
085601µ÷¼Á 358·Ö
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
0856 271Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
ÄÜÔ´²ÄÁÏ»¯Ñ§¿ÎÌâ×éÕÐÊÕ˶ʿÑо¿Éú8-10Ãû
ÒѾÓÐ15È˻ظ´
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸Î÷°²½»Í¨´óѧ²ÄÁϹ¤³Ìרҵ 282·ÖÇóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ9È˻ظ´
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸ÖØÇì´óѧ085700×ÊÔ´Óë»·¾³×Ü·Ö308Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
rockinuk
Ìú¸Ëľ³æ (Ö°Òµ×÷¼Ò)
- SEPI: 10
- Ó¦Öú: 1512 (½²Ê¦)
- ½ð±Ò: 7810.9
- É¢½ð: 189
- ºì»¨: 106
- Ìû×Ó: 3982
- ÔÚÏß: 570.6Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 1945379
- ×¢²á: 2012-08-19
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: ÊýÂÛ

13Â¥2012-08-30 11:10:18
¡ï
Сľ³æ: ½ð±Ò+0.5, ¸ø¸öºì°ü£¬Ð»Ð»»ØÌû
Сľ³æ: ½ð±Ò+0.5, ¸ø¸öºì°ü£¬Ð»Ð»»ØÌû
|
±¾ÌûÄÚÈݱ»ÆÁ±Î |
2Â¥2012-07-03 18:54:02
liyingsong
ľ³æ (ÖøÃûдÊÖ)
- Ó¦Öú: 285 (´óѧÉú)
- ½ð±Ò: 1550.7
- É¢½ð: 266
- ºì»¨: 4
- Ìû×Ó: 1350
- ÔÚÏß: 51.5Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 928270
- ×¢²á: 2009-12-15
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: ͨÐÅÀíÂÛÓëϵͳ
4Â¥2012-07-03 19:13:59
xiajimu
Ìú¸Ëľ³æ (ÖªÃû×÷¼Ò)
- Ó¦Öú: 1703 (½²Ê¦)
- ½ð±Ò: 12573.5
- É¢½ð: 9739
- ºì»¨: 35
- Ìû×Ó: 5940
- ÔÚÏß: 2164.6Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 288243
- ×¢²á: 2006-10-21
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: »¯Ñ§¹¤³Ì¼°¹¤Òµ»¯Ñ§
5Â¥2012-07-03 19:19:55













»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥