1999 PPoPP Electronic Referee's Report

Please return this report by December 29th, 1999 to:
					ppopp99-reviews@csag.ucsd.edu

(Please do NOT ERASE %%'s as they delimit fields for electronic parsing )
 

%% Paper Number: 
 
%% ???

%% Paper Title: 
 
%% ???


 Place a number corresponding to your evaluation for each item below.
 (5=outstanding, 4=high, 3=medium, 2=fair, 1=poor)
 
%% Technical contribution of paper: 
 
%% ???

%% Quality of presentation: 
 
%% ???

%% Interest/Importance to current PPoPP: 
 
%% ???

%% Interest/Importance to giving new directions to PPoPP:
 
%% ???

%% Confidence in your evaluation: 

%% ???
 
%% Recommended action for paper: 

%% ???

 (5=strong accept (award quality), 
  4=accept (I learnt something), 
  3=maybe (if we are hard up), 
  2=reject (will raise eyebrows if accepted), 
  1=strong reject (will be an embarrassment if accepted))
 
Regardless of the recommendations, please state specific comments and
suggestions that can be communicated to the author(s).  The review should
summarize the paper and enumerate the new ideas/approaches/results claimed
by the authors.  The rest of your review should be a detailed critique of
these claims, including discussion of the following questions.  Are the
claims of novelty justified?  If so, are the proposed techniques practical?
If they are practical, are there experimental results to show that it is
worth implementing them?

%% Comments returned to Authors:
 
 
 
 
%%
========================================================================
 
%% Comments for the Program committee (will not be returned to author):
 
 
 
%%

%% I will be an advocate for the paper at the PC meeting:

%%
(5 = strong, 4 = weak, 3 = neutral, 2 = weak against, 1 = strong against)