INTERNET MEASUREMENT WORKSHOP (IMW'02) FEEDBACK FORM 1. Why did you attend this workshop? (Please mark all that apply or add our own reason) 28 because my paper was accepted 31 to hear the talks 33 to meet others working in the field write in: to see Marseille ! to visit Marseille :) get ideas on how Internet2 could help network researchers to see Marseille ! Because I got the student travel grant Because my papers were rejected 2. Was the two-and-a-half day technical format 0 too long 2 too short 42 about right 3. How do you rate the technical content of the workshop? 9 Very good (better than expected) 30 Good (about as expected) 2 Bad (worse than expected) write in: how about very good, about as expected?! Some very good, and some good 4. What topics would like to see more of? * Less mathematical analysis * More operator-centric talks? Somewhere between Nanog and Sigmetrics. * Overall, I think the workshop showcases the best work in the area. What more can you ask for! Having said that, I think measurement principles and approaches -- lessons with a long half life are slowly emerging. I would encourage the acceptance of such papers with long half lives. * Routing * Passive measurement. BGP, DNS related measurement * More routing dynamics -- more analysis of the routing system * Modeling, statistical analysis * Application layer measurement * New measurement techniques and tools security, anomaly, analysis wireless measurements * Wireless. Things that may have an impact (rather then just characterization) * I liked the balance, maybe more sampling -- related subjects -- dealing to ever larger data focus * Use of measurements in regular operations * Network security related papers * Validating/refuting previous results, but more convincingly * Traffic matrix estimation * Results of interpreting raw measurement data, cute hacks * Applicative use of the theory * Protocol performance * Active measurements * Wireless measurements * Inference techniques for traffic analysis * Measurement techniques * Passive measurements * OK as it is * Application-level measurement * Traffic analysis, applications * More solid traffic analysis and applications * Interesting applications (measurements of) * Streaming and other app. studies 5. What topics would like to see less of? * More modeling directed to traffic engineering problems, More measurement methodology papers * Maybe fewer papers that take measurements and say "this is what we observed and here is a distributional fit to the data". What interesting things do these measurements say about systems being measured? What's the larger lesson? * Measurement papers that present lots of data with little insight/explanation. Traffic analysis. * No, all topics are good. * None * Plain data analysis with little implications * Pure characterization * Academic research papers that clearly belong in SigComm but were rejected there. * BGP * BGP, raw measurement data * "pure" mathematical concepts are almost impossible to carry through in 15-20 minutes unless you are familiar with the theory * characterization * video/audio performance * simple measured data sets * DNS Hacks, accesses of existing network infrastructure * OK * Topologies * P2P (there is a workshop for P2P) * Routing? 6. Was there enough time for questions during talks? 24 Yes 14 Somewhat 5 No write-in: no but varied a lot between sessions yes, mostly -- though not all somewhat, (but not your fault!) check between somewhat and no 7. Was there enough time for discussion with other attendees? 33 Yes 10 Somewhat 1 No 8. Were you satisfied with the facilities 36 Yes 7 Somewhat 1 No write in: yes, except organized lunches would have been good yes, hotel space was hard to come by yes, very. The room was spacious, with great audio I would have liked: * An access to the internet * Written information about events is helpful for those whose native language is not English * Water at each conference table. * Better food and beverages during the day, working wireless (unconditionally) 9. Were you satisfied with the social event? 39 Yes 2 Somewhat 1 No write in: yes, a lot ! yes, the cocktail time with seafood was great!! 3 checks for yes 10. What features would you like to see next year? 38 Continuation of student travel grants 22 Panels on selected topics write in: maybe 9 Tutorials write in: when it becomes a conference 8 Keynote talk write in: short -- 30 mins or less 7 Mini workshops on selected topics Other:________ Vendor/equipment/tool demonstrations during breaks No parallel tracks ! 11. Are you interested in attending this workshop in the future? 41 Yes 1 No 12. Do you think that IMW should become a conference with open attendance or remain a workshop with limited attendance? Why or why not? * Keeping the cost down is nice, so if IMC means higher cost then * Limited. Builds a community * Workshop. It allows for better discussions on different topics including incomplete work and half-baked work * I think it should be a conference, and take the role of the major Internet measurement event of the year * Open it up * I am happy with the present format, except for time being too short! * I am worried going down the ieee or sigcomm bazaar; I like meeting with close community that I work within. Keep it effective and "cosy" * Undecided. I enjoy the smaller presentation facilities hat are made possible by the limited attendance, but at the same time feel it could be expanded somewhat to include more people * I believe having a limited number of people has its advantage of spending more time in discussions per attendee, while in a large conference, building relations becomes less probable -- so I prefer it has its special flavor as is now. * It should become a conference. current format penalized visibility * Workshop with limited attendance * Conference. A "workshop" paper is considered by many in the academic world as a minor contribution * Some increase in the number of attendees might be good but I think limited attendance is better than open attendance * I think it should be open, it is much nice socially to have a close conference but many interested people cannot attend * Workshop fosters discussions, Size is about right * Limited, it's more cozy * Open attendance, I understand limited attendance allows intimate environment for in-depth discussion, but considering the quality of papers, I think IMW should be accessible to more people for the sake of info sharing. * IMC * Limited attendance, much easier to have high-quality conversations -- less flitting about * Conference with open attendance, increase interest in the area * Higher but limited attendance, don't care whether it is called IMW or IMC * I don't mind limited, but think it could be a bit larger * Open attendance. This can add more diversity to the conference * Should be open to everyone interested * Should become a conference since the quality of the papers are high. Being a conference will attract more good papers. * Remain a workshop. To have the attendance all from the field and have meaningful discussion. * Limited attendance makes discussions/collaborations better. * I like the size it is now. Opening it up would dilute the collegial atmosphere, OTOH, more people makes for more opportunity, so its a trade off * A conference. Quality of papers appearing here qualifies it to become a conference. * I think its important to retain the 6-page format in addition to the full conference papers. As long as the conference/workshop retains its ability to attract in-progress work, either is ok. * Workshop. It's nice to be a small group to facilitate discussion, etc. * A conference. The field is growing rapidly in interest and importance. The community needs as open technical conference in the area in which the Field can be based, be nurtured, and grow * Limited attendance unless the number of attendance is naturally limited -- 100-150 is an upper limit 13. If you submitted a paper, let us know what you thought about the quality of the reviews. * Reasonable. * Very good albeit not as informed with some topics * Useless. The majority of the reviews didn't get the big picture of the work and focused on some minor details to trash the work. A lot of the reviewers didn't provide a constructive feedback on how to enhance the work, and some of them are based on the reviewers believes. * Excellent * Not this year * Average * Some reviews reflect good reading, but some show one paper was not read carefully * I believe the reviews were very careful and much better thought through than in other bigger conference. However, in certain cases I found them rather strict even though instructions advised encouragement of innovative/novel and possibly not complete work, this does not seem to have got through to most reviewers * Good * The reviews were definitely helpful * I am not satisfied with the reviews. They were very short and I wonder if the reviewers read the paper carefully. * I think the reviews were good and useful * I thought the shepherding process was very good and Jennifer's feedback was of tremendous help as well as the reviews * Moderate * Good * Decent * Top notch * Very varied * Very good feedback * Good * Ok * Good * Not explain enough about what they expect to see on the questions my paper tried to answer. * Quality of the reviews were good. Gave us some good suggestions for improving the paper. * Review were small. Didn't provide much feedback for improvement. Actually at point one review comment was simply incorrect. Overall I was not satisfied with the quality of the review. Perhaps reviewing the reviews may help in future. * Pretty good. * Disappointing * They were just like a typical Sigcomm review-and there are both good and bad aspects of that! * Quality of reviews was great! (much better than say, Sigcomm02) * My review grades were: accept, likely accept and likely reject. Only the reviewer who gave "likely accept" grade, gave also such comments that indicated that he/she had read the paper carefully. The submitted version of the paper contained some poor language, unclear items and the main idea was not clearly visible. This was mainly due to hurry, but also we are working on the subject all the time and it improved after the submission of the paper. All the review comments were helpful though, although perhaps not in the way that the reviewers commented * Reducing a 15 pages paper to only 2 pages is a bit drastic, isn't it? From some discussions with the attendees it would have been more reasonable to give us 15-20 minutes to present our contribution * Fine 14. Please write any additional comment or suggestions. * I heard of this workshop by speaking to people not give to what's the best mailing list for this type of event * Great hosting * Papers in this workshop MUST NOT be a ground breaking research! This is not Sigcomm. The reviewers were evaluating the submitted papers based on that. You better remind the reviews that this is a workshop and not a conference. * Provide a list of attendees, make presentation slides available, great socials * Diversify the PC * Have a nice safe trip!, & thanks for all the work, effort & the chance! * Good size for the workshop/conference. Nice sized breaks makes for more focused attention during talks. Turning off wireless during talks is fine. * New Orleans 2003 * General, very well done * Having a podium PC would be great so that people with no laptops or laptop problems don't have to run around. Would be nice if speakers knew about the available facilities (PC, Overhead) in advance. * Overall, the organization was great and the technical content quite good. Great job. I'm glad I came. I liked the mixed presentation lengths. One panel would be interesting, and would provide a good change of pace. * I like the format with different length papers and presentations, but 10 min presentations are very hard for the presenters * 2.5 days -- 15 hours of conference -- 45 x 20 min presentations