CSC2125 Paper Review Form - Winter 2019

Reviewer: Eric Langlois

Paper Title:
Internet of Vehicles: From Intelligent Grid to Autonomous Cars and Vehicular
Clouds

Author(s):
Mario Gerla,
Eun-Kyu Lee,
Giovanni Pau,
Uichin Lee

1) Is the paper technically correct?
 [X] Yes
 [ ] Mostly (minor flaws, but mostly solid)
 [ ] No

2) Originality
 [ ] Very good (very novel, trailblazing work)
 [X] Good
 [ ] Marginal (very incremental)
 [ ] Poor (little or nothing that is new)

3) Technical Depth
 [ ] Very good (comparable to best conference papers)
 [X] Good (comparable to typical conference papers)
 [ ] Marginal depth
 [ ] Little or no depth

4) Impact/Significance
 [ ] Very significant
 [X] Significant
 [ ] Marginal significance.
 [ ] Little or no significance.

5) Presentation
 [ ] Very well written
 [X] Generally well written
 [ ] Readable
 [ ] Needs considerable work
 [ ] Unacceptably bad

6) Overall Rating
 [ ] Strong accept (award quality)
 [X] Accept (high quality - would argue for acceptance)
 [ ] Weak Accept (borderline, but lean towards acceptance)
 [ ] Weak Reject (not sure why this paper was published)


7) Summary of the paper's main contribution and rationale
   for your recommendation. (1-2 paragraphs)

This paper presents a potential computing and network architecture for
autonomous vehicle systems. The system described is a decentralized,
information-centric network. Two core properties are that (1) sensor data is
shared readily between vehicles and (2) information is identified by its content
and not its source. The authors provide a high-level description of the
protocol, give some motivations for why such a protocol would be useful, and
discuss its implications for autonomous vehicle systems and human drivers or
passengers.

I am not familiar with the literature in this area so it is difficult for me to
evaluate the originality and significance of this work. I propose that the paper
be accepted because the authors clearly present a (to my knowledge) novel and
useful networking architecture for autonomous vehicles. The discussion is
informative, if somewhat shallow, and covers a number of relevant areas
including vehicle-to-vehicle signaling, passenger experience, radio spectrum
congestion, distributed cloud computing, and security.


8) List 1-3 strengths of the paper.  (1-2 sentences each,
identified as S1, S2, S3.)

S1. The networking protocol is described clearly and at an appropriate level of
	abstraction for introducing the proposed architecture.

S2. The discussion is well-written and covers many relevant consequences and
	use-cases of the proposed architecture (but not all, see W2).

9) List 1-3 weaknesses of the paper (1-2 sentences each,
identified as W1, W2, W3.)

W1. The practical likelihood of such a distributed network is not discussed. The
	authors compare it to Internet Of Things (IOT) but to my knowledge, most IOT
	devices follow a centralized structure with information flowing through the
	manufacturer's servers.

W2. There is little comparison of the proposed architecture against other
possible architectures. The potential weakness are discussed almost not at all.