• 1.  Serverless document comments addressing

    Posted Jul 16, 2021 11:07:00 AM

    Dear Serverless WG members,

    As you might know, our Serverless Computing in 2021 paper finished its peer review period and now we are currently addressing those comments.

    The sooner these comments are addressed, the sooner we can send the paper for copy editing and then publication.

    Let's aim at having it published for the SECtember event this September.

    Next Thursday (July 22nd), we have scheduled our working group call in order to discuss the peer review feedback. 

    Prior to that meeting, please address as any comments in the sections you authored (between today, July 16 until Thursday July 22). 

    If you are unsure about how to address a peer review comment in your section, please add a comment to this discussion thread so it can be added to the agenda for this meeting.

    If you have any questions, please reach out to myself or the co-chairs if you have any questions.

    Kind regards,


    P.S. For your convenience, I'm tagging here the authors that have comments to address in their respective section:

    Chapter 5: @David Hadas, @Vani Murthy, @Ricardo Ferreira, @John Wrobel

    Chapter 6: @Aradhna, @Vishwas Manral, @Vani Murthy, @MADHAV CHABLANI


  • 2.  RE: Serverless document comments addressing

    Posted Jul 21, 2021 06:05:00 AM
    Edited by David Hadas Jul 21, 2021 06:08:30 AM

    I have reviewed and processed all comments on Chapter 5

    There is one fundamental issue to discuss relating to comments by Alex Rebo which I would like to bring up tomorrow.

    Please send details on the call (time and time zone + zoom) 

    If Alex is on the call, we should let him summarize his main comments, if not, I tried to summarize it a comment which I added to the paper and  will repeat below:

    "I would like to summarize the main line of thought by our reviewer Alex Rebo (indicated as AE in the comments section) from what I can capture based on his valuable comments.

    Alex feels that we should reduce the list of threats to only those that are clearly significantly different under Serverless compared to other technologies - i.e. he feels we should avoid pointing out in the list of threats, changes to existing threats were we cant show that they are really (significantly) different. At the same time, Alex was less critical to Section 5.4 and apparently did not feel that the discussion made there (and raise all 25 threats) is inadequate.

    His strong conviction seem to relate to the summarizing table (the list of 25). He indicated that he sees part of it as FUD since not all items are of value in his view.

    We used a methodology where we summarise first and detail later. We start with high level 5.2, move to the table 5.3 and detail more in 5.4.

    I would like to find a way to address his comments without loosing the information which I believe is valuable.

    Options we can consider:
    1. Create a smaller threat table without what Alex view as FUD and than add "additional items for consideration" where we will move the remaining (not a big undertaking I believe)

    2. Move the table till after the text in 5.4 - not sure it will convince a reader with views same as Alex that it is not a FUD

    David Hadas

  • 3.  RE: Serverless document comments addressing

    Posted Jul 21, 2021 02:05:00 PM

    Hi David,

    I just updated the agenda for the G calendar.

    The details of each call can be found here also under Upcoming Events.

    I'm pasting them here for your convenience also.

    Hear you tomorrow!


    Meeting ID: 986 8142 0926

    M B