==-== Fill out lettered sections A through G.
==-== DO NOT CHANGE LINES THAT START WITH "==+==" UNLESS DIRECTED!
==-== A single file can contain multiple forms.
==+== CoNEXT 2009 Paper Review Forms
==-== Fill out lettered sections A through G.

==+== =====================================================================
==+== Begin Review
==+== Reviewer: 

==+== Paper #1
==-== Title: Detailed Diagnosis in Enterprise Networks

==+== Review Readiness
==-== Enter "Ready" if the review is ready for others to see:

Ready

==+== A. Confidence
==-== Choices: 1. I am not in this area, and should not even be reviewing
==-==             this paper. Please assign this paper to another reviewer.
==-==          2. I am not an expert. My evaluation is that of an informed
==-==             outsider. I may miss some flaws in the work.
==-==          3. I am knowledgeable in the area, though not an expert. I
==-==             am aware of the important work in the field but do not
==-==             have exhaustive knowledge of it.
==-==          4. I work in this field and know the literature well, but
==-==             there are people more expert than me. I have good
==-==             confidence in my judgment.
==-==          5. I am an expert in the subject area of this paper and know
==-==             the literature exhaustively. I have very high confidence
==-==             in my judgment.
==-== Enter the number of your choice:



==+== B. Summary
==-==    Please summarize the paper in a few sentences. Try to address
==-==    these questions: (1) What type of paper is it? (2) What is the
==-==    context for this paper? (3) Is it correct? (4) What are its
==-==    contributions? (5) Is it comprehensible?


==+== C. Strengths
==-==    What are the paper's main strengths?


==+== D. Weaknesses
==-==    What are the paper's main weaknesses?


==+== E. Evaluation
==-==    What is your opinion of the paper?

==-== Choices: 1. This paper has numerous unfixable technical problems.
==-==          2. This paper has multiple serious technical problems or has
==-==             minor incremental contribution.
==-==          3. This is a weak paper, with one or two major flaws.
==-==          4. This is a good paper, with minor and shepherdable
==-==             technical flaws.
==-==          5. This is among the best I've reviewed. I'd really want to
==-==             see this paper in ConEXT and will champion it if I am in
==-==             the PC.
==-== Enter the number of your choice:


==+== F. Detailed Comments
==-==    Please supply detailed comments to back up your rankings. These
==-==    comments will be forwarded to the authors of the paper. 
==-==    
==-==    Please try to be positive in your reviews: for instance, instead
==-==    of saying "Your scheme is bad," consider saying "Your scheme would
==-==    be stronger if it dealt with case X."
==-==    
==-==    If you think that the paper should cite prior work, please give a
==-==    full citation to the work that should be cited. 
==-==    
==-==    Please address any of the following that apply: (1) Incorrect
==-==    assumptions (2) Insufficient evaluation (3) Instances where the
==-==    solution may not work correctly (4) Portions of the paper that you
==-==    found hard to read or understand (5) Whether the focus of the work
==-==    is too narrow, leading to incremental gains (6) Whether the proofs
==-==    are correct (7) Whether the statistical analysis is correct (8)
==-==    Whether the claims made match the contributions (9) Whether the
==-==    authors use an appropriate data set (10) Whether the system leaves
==-==    out important components (11) Whether the solution is deployable.

==+== G. Confidential Comments for Committee (hidden from authors)
==-==    You may wish to withhold some comments from the authors, and
==-==    include them solely for the committee's internal use.


==+== End Review