Panlab

Thanks xxx. The paper in its current format may fit testing venues better than networking ones. I am still working on NAT emulation and traversal, and we still can collaborate on these and other topics. I will talk to you once I am back near the end of this month. Too bad zzz has decided to leave for Waterloo. 🙂 But best wishes to him anyway.  -j

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, xxx wrote:
> Jianping,
>
> zzz and I have decided that we will not be submitting the paper to IPTComm.
>
> zzz and I will submit the paper somewhere else without your name on the 
> paper.
>
> Sorry that the collaboration was not more productive.
>
> xxx

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, xxx wrote:

> Jianping,
>
> I will submit the paper to IPTComm.
>
> I need two things from you:
>
> 1. Have you already created an account for the paper?
> If so, I need the account name and password.

no, i still cannot connect to iptcomm.org.

>
> 2. Do you wish to leave your name as author, even though the paper does not 
> meet your standards?
> I will present the paper if needed.

no, thanks, but feel free to use the updated yyy section. also, i suggest you make some changes to the paper structure to make it more appealing to networking people. in addition, i suggest some update to the related work on the testing aspects of firewall/nat etc and leave nat traversal to background. if some tcpdump snippets can be added to testing results, it will make the paper stronger. if possible, some update to the introduction section is necessary to highlight the novelty, contributions and results of this paper. best wishes to the paper!

please send me a copy after your submission as well. thanks.  -j

hello xxx,

i do not know why you believe the paper is good enough for submission. the paper still has technical errors (e.g., turn is not a tcp equivalent of stun), and the presentation can be improved as well. more importantly, the paper structure needs to be changed. if you want me to submit the paper to a networking conference and potentially present the paper, it has to first meet my standards. i think we have the responsibility of quality control for the work and paper of ourselves and our students, especially when we know that the work and paper can be considerably improved by ourselves.

i have updated the section on yyy (please see the attached 3-yyy.tex; also the pseudo code portion has been embedded in the same file). i did not reformat the tex file, so you can diff with the old one to see my changes. also please find the embedded comments led by %j: to see my reasoning for these changes.

i still suggest not to submit this paper in its current format. by the way, i have no way to submit this paper anyway: either iptcomm.org (its host site hostgator.com) is blocking my tcp connection to tcp port 80, or it is blocked by the great firewall (see the attached iptcomm.org).

if you still want to submit the paper, please use the attached Makefile to have the proper paper size and fonts embedding. no matter whether my name is listed or not, by courtesy, please send me a copy, so i can know what else we can work upon.

zzz: what’s your opinion?

also, please forward us the review comments from our last submission to tse. thanks.

-j

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 xxx@csc.uvic.ca wrote:
> Jianping,
>
> I believe that the paper we sent to you was good enough to submit.
>
> I think it is inappropriate for you, who played a minor role
> in the research, to be making major decisions about the paper.
>
> I will be very unhappy if you do not submit this paper to IPTComm.
>
> If you are unwilling to do so, then please let me know and I will
> submit the paper without your name as author.
>
> xxx