In this assignment, you will write a 5000-7000 word position paper. You must choose from from the possible position topics, or clear your topic idea with the professor. You can also take the opposite position from those described below.
You will also evaluate 2 of your classmate's position papers, and then revise your paper.
The goals of this assignment are (1) practice writing in a manner that convinces others, (2) research an interesting topic related to computer networks, and (3) generate reactions among your fellow classmates and the professor.
Above all, try to have some fun with your position --- invoke some reaction in your classmates (from awe at your genius to anger at your toeing the party-line)
5000-7000 words, or 6-8 pages in 10pt font.
Must have a title and abstract
Position topic from the list below, or approved by the professor.
Name is optional
PDF format
First Draft: 5PM, Friday October 24, 2008
Reviews: 5PM,
Friday October 31, 2008
Revised paper (note this has moved!): 5PM, Wed. November 21,
2008
Email your papers and reviews in PDF format to the
instructor.
Please pick from one of these topics. You can also pick the counter-position to each topic if you wish.
Peer to Peer technologies have little to zero legitimate use. This position states that the vast majority of P2P technologies were developed to aid users pirating digital content. A good place to start is by researching this court case.
Vanets vs. Infostations vs 3G and 4G for content vehicular applications. This position would argue that one of these technologies is superior for content distribution for emerging vehicular network applications. A paper describing infostations can be found here. VANETs and 3/4G have a wealth of literature surrounding them.
Privacy will die soon (or is dead already). Computer technologies, and networking technologies in particular, have the potential to fundamentally alter the ability to keep information private. This position would argue that such a change has already occurred and can not be reversed. A starting point is this article.
Bottom up standards are better. This position argues that standards built from the 'bottom up', i.e. from existing artifacts and prototypes with a user community, is a fundamentally more sound way at arriving at standards that get adopted than a 'top down' approach, where a standards body comes up with the protocol. Some papers to get started are here and here. You may also wish to investigate the standardization process of ethernet and 802.11b protocols.
Distributed hash tables (DHTs): What are they good for? This position questions if the complexities of building truly scalable DHTs are worth the effort. Users will instead gravitate to simpler solutions to distribute data. (e.g. making a local copy).
Ipv4 is sufficient for the next 30 years. Many predictions of the great “address crunch” and other calamities have failed to happen to the current Internet. This position argues that IPV4 is sufficient to handle the needs of the next generation of users. One talk that address the current situation is here. One approach to writing the paper is to extend the evidence in the talk and either agree or disagree with the author's conclusions.
IP over direct links. Several people have argued that IP should be run over “raw” link rather than over existing telecommunications protocols. For example, running IP over SONET over ATM is seen as wasting a lot of bandwidth. This position argues that higher-level telecommunications protocols should thus be abandoned. This paper provides a starting point for the discussion.
Over-provisioning vs. QoS. (Suggested by Badri Nath). Most users do not care how their data is moved, only that the network performs “well enough”. Many Quality of Service (QoS) schemes have been proposed, but none is widely deployed. This position states that following a path of over-provisioning the network is a superior strategy. In this paper, you would review the literature for networking schemes that provide guarantees on latency, bandwidth, and jitter (e.g., an older protocol suite is described here, follow the backward references for additional protocols). A paper that makes the case for over provisioning can be found here. Expand or contradict the arguments presented in this paper.
Multicast vs. P2P. Content distribution was one of the original applications for multicast. This position argues P2P is better than multicast for content distribution applications.
Mobile IP is dead. Mobile IP has been discussed but never widely used. This position declares mobile IP should rest in peace, because other approaches can satisfy user's mobility issues (like hitting reload on their web-browsers).
Wireless Ad-hoc networks. Mobile Ad hoc networks are almost never used in practice; i.e., almost every wireless network nodes communicate to base-stations and access points, instead of co-operating to forward packets hop-by-hop. This position argues MANETS are a fundamentally flawed architecture, in that the latency, bandwidth and connectivity properties in MANETS are not suitable for end-users.
Information will be free. This position argues that the concept of “copyright” is flawed. In an age where technology allows one to make infinitely perfect copies, the government attempting to enforce restrictions on the uses of digital information is a quixotic quest at best, and a perverse distortion at worst. Instead, a free market between content producers and consumers should exist, much as it did in the era before copyright law.
This
paper has some good guidelines in for position papers in general.
Two sample “good” position papers from past courses can be
found here
and here.
First, make sure to articulate your position clearly. Second, for a good computer science paper, you should have some quantitative arguments. A list of anecdotes is not a persuasive way to support of a position. Sometimes, you can't directly measure something, but an indirect observation might support your argument. For example, some people have made the argument that performance isn't as important as it used to be because the difference between the average selling price of a PC and the most expensive PC have diverged over time. While not proving the argument, the thesis fits the facts better than many alternative explanations.
Third, be careful of using counter-examples to argue against a position. For example, a position of the form "X implies Y" and then coming up with an example of "not Y" doesn't say anything about statement X. Counter examples can be quite useful, but make sure the position is clear enough that the counter-example is meaningful.
Here are my evaluation categories and their meanings; you can use this as is or come up with your own:
Excellent: The paper could be submitted as a "letter" --- a short position paper-- to a journal as is.
Very Good: The paper has some problems, but nothing that couldn't be fixed without a quick clean-up.
Good: The paper has some problems, there are some gaps in the overall positions, counter-positions, or supporting evidence.
Fair: The paper has more serious problems. These may include (1) ill-defined position, (2) elements of the evidence are missing, (3) counter positions are not addressed, (4) really bad grammar, or (5) poor organization.
Poor: The position in not well explained or defined. The paper is confusing or internally inconsistent.
Atrocious: What a piece of junk! I'm surprised it was turned in at all.