I am pleased to inform you that your submission
(paper 192, Storm: Using P2P to make the desktop part of the Web)
has been accepted as a short paper for the ACM Hypertext 2003 conference.
The quality has remained high with 25% of submissions being accepted,
and despite the short timescale, most submissions were reviewed by
four referees.
The timescale for the final version of your paper is very tight - we
need to receive the final, camera-ready copy from you by Friday 20th June.
When preparing the final version, you should take into account the referees'
comments (below) and the formatting instructions on
http://www.ht03.org/submissions.html
Thank you for your interest in HT03. We are anticipating a lively conference
and look forward to your participation.
---
Les Carr & Lynda Hardman
HT03 PC CoChairs
===================== REVIEWS ====================
Score: 8
An interesting look at a significant work in progress
Score: 7
Nice paper, look forward to seeing it in print. But before
it does, please don`t use the name "Storm" so many times
-sounds as if you are trying to sell us a product! Also,
you have completely misunderstood what Schneier says about
cryptographic hashes in your reference to [10] - it is
*NOT* "practically impossible" that two documents will
_have_ the same hash (in fact, it is absolutely certainly
going to happen), but rather, it is practically impossible
to _find_ any two documents that have the same hash. This
is the "collision resistance" property and it means that
is is hard to discover other documents with the same hash,
but it is quite easy for such to exist, purely on the
pigeon-hole principle (whether alternative documents with
the same hash are meaningful is another matter).
Score: 5
The motivation of `including the desktop` is valid, although
the UI changes that your suggested approach would require
are too numerous for such a change to be usable - a fact
to which you allude in Section 3. It is also unclear
how using a straightforward hashing function, such as
SHA-1 or MD5, would suffice to cater for all resources in
the application space without collisions (I would argue
that it is insufficient). Further, the choice of URN
naming is not new (e.g. eDonkey`s URN format for file
sharing), and there is no discussion of the impact of
moving from a structured naming scheme (of which users
may rightly or wrongly make assumptions regarding content)
to an opaque one. Discussion of Storm`s security model
would help the reader assess the utility of having `all
documents stored on their local hard disk` included
automagically by the Storm system, especially in light of
recent discoveries of other p2p filesharing tools and
their somewhat questionable behaviour of file publication.
Th