A Backward-Compatible Protocol Upgrade for HotNets

Michael Schapira; Paolo Costa

arxiv: 2606.25786 · v1 · pith:F2GTCZPVnew · submitted 2026-06-24 · 💻 cs.NI

A Backward-Compatible Protocol Upgrade for HotNets

Paolo Costa , Michael Schapira This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 19:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.NI

keywords HotNets workshopreview process changesperspective papersnetworking research venuecommunity discussiongenerative AI guidelinesprogram structure

0 comments

The pith

HotNets 2026 broadens its scope to perspective papers and adopts a collaborative review process to host more ambitious networking ideas.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper outlines a set of coordinated changes for the ACM HotNets 2026 workshop covering scope, evaluation criteria, review procedures, presentation formats, and guidelines for generative AI. These adjustments aim to clarify HotNets as a place for agenda-setting work, community discussion, and trials of new evaluation methods that bigger conferences could later copy. The authors present the updates as a single package rather than separate tweaks and invite community input on whether the changes succeed and how the workshop should evolve.

Core claim

The authors state that the adopted changes, which include adding perspective and community-facing papers, using separate criteria for technical versus perspective submissions, shifting to a more discussion-oriented review, rethinking session formats, and testing responsible GenAI use, together strengthen HotNets as a venue for unconventional ideas while serving as an experimental space whose successful formats larger venues such as SIGCOMM or NSDI might adopt later.

What carries the argument

The package of five linked changes (broadened scope with distinct criteria, collaborative review, revised program structure, and GenAI guidelines) that the authors treat as one coherent upgrade to the workshop's identity and operations.

If this is right

HotNets will attract more unconventional and thought-provoking submissions by explicitly welcoming perspective contributions.
The collaborative review format will shift emphasis from adversarial scoring toward discussion that improves accepted work.
Accepted papers will be presented and discussed in revised session formats that prioritize community interaction.
Exploration of GenAI assistance in reviewing and dissemination will generate data that can inform practices at other venues.
Successful elements can serve as models for larger conferences seeking to incorporate agenda-setting or experimental tracks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The backward-compatible framing suggests the changes can run alongside existing expectations, lowering the barrier for authors and reviewers to try the new elements.
Collecting structured feedback during the event itself creates a built-in mechanism for rapid iteration on the workshop model in subsequent years.
If perspective papers prove popular, other networking workshops may face pressure to define their own criteria for non-technical contributions.
The emphasis on experimentation positions HotNets as a testbed whose outcomes could affect how the broader community weighs rigor versus novelty in research evaluation.

Load-bearing premise

That adding perspective papers and altering the review process will draw ambitious ideas without lowering technical standards or dividing the existing community.

What would settle it

A measurable decline in the number or quality of submissions for HotNets 2026, or predominantly negative feedback collected during and after the event, would show the changes failed to meet the stated goals.

read the original abstract

This document outlines the changes adopted for ACM HotNets 2026, spanning its scope, review process, and program structure. Rather than isolated adjustments, these changes form a coherent effort to clarify and extend HotNets' role as a venue for agenda-setting research, community discussion, and experimentation with how the networking community evaluates, disseminates, and discusses research. In particular, HotNets 2026 broadens its scope to include perspective and community-facing contributions, introduces distinct evaluation criteria for technical and perspective papers, adopts a more collaborative and discussion-oriented review process, rethinks how accepted work is presented and discussed at the workshop, and explores responsible uses of generative AI (GenAI) in reviewing and research dissemination. We believe these changes will help HotNets continue to serve as a home for ambitious, unconventional, and thought-provoking ideas, while also positioning it as a venue for experimenting with new approaches and formats that larger conferences, e.g., SIGCOMM or NSDI, might later adopt. We use this document to solicit feedback from the community, both on these changes and on how HotNets can best serve the networking community in the future. We plan to collect feedback during and after the event and to prepare a follow-up report summarizing the community's reactions and lessons learned.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This is a transparent announcement of HotNets 2026 policy tweaks, not a research paper with claims or data.

read the letter

HotNets 2026 is updating its rules to bring in perspective papers, separate evaluation tracks, a more discussion-focused review, different presentation formats, and some GenAI guidelines. The document frames these as a unified plan to keep the workshop as a place for bold ideas and community experiments.

The strength is in the clarity and the invitation for feedback. Listing the changes explicitly and committing to a post-event report shows they're serious about listening to the community. That approach is practical and could help refine things based on real reactions.

Nothing here is groundbreaking in the broader sense—workshops have experimented with scope and review before—but the combination tailored to HotNets, including distinct criteria for different paper types, is specific to this case and worth noting for people who follow this venue.

The soft spot is the lack of any supporting evidence or discussion of downsides. The authors state their belief that this will attract ambitious work without harming rigor, but there's no data, past examples analyzed, or risk assessment. It reads as an announcement of intent rather than a tested proposal.

This document is for networking researchers who care about HotNets or similar workshops, and for organizers elsewhere looking at format tweaks. It gives a concrete example of one workshop's evolution.

I wouldn't send it for peer review in a technical journal because it doesn't present research findings or derivations to evaluate. It's better as an open call for comments within the community.

Referee Report

0 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes planned changes for ACM HotNets 2026, including broadening scope to perspective and community-facing papers, distinct evaluation criteria for technical versus perspective submissions, a collaborative discussion-oriented review process, revised presentation formats at the workshop, and exploration of responsible GenAI uses in reviewing and dissemination. It asserts that these adjustments form a coherent effort to position HotNets as a venue for agenda-setting research, community discussion, and experimentation with evaluation and dissemination formats, while soliciting community feedback for a follow-up report.

Significance. If implemented, the changes could encourage ambitious and unconventional ideas in networking and provide a testbed for formats that larger venues like SIGCOMM or NSDI might adopt. The document's primary value is as an organizational announcement and call for input rather than a technical contribution; it contains no data, derivations, or empirical evaluation of the proposed changes' effectiveness.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract and introduction repeat the motivation for the changes without providing concrete examples of how the new criteria or process will be operationalized (e.g., how 'distinct evaluation criteria' will be applied in practice).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their review of our manuscript describing the planned changes for ACM HotNets 2026. We clarify below how this document aligns with the workshop's broadened scope for perspective and community-facing contributions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The document's primary value is as an organizational announcement and call for input rather than a technical contribution; it contains no data, derivations, or empirical evaluation of the proposed changes' effectiveness.

Authors: We agree this manuscript is not a traditional technical paper with empirical results or derivations. However, the HotNets 2026 call explicitly broadens scope to include perspective and community-facing papers with distinct evaluation criteria. This document announces a coherent set of changes, explains their rationale, and solicits community feedback, with an explicit plan for a follow-up report summarizing reactions and lessons learned. It therefore fits the new criteria for such contributions rather than requiring technical evaluation of the changes themselves. revision: no
Referee: REFEREE RECOMMENDATION: reject

Authors: We respectfully disagree with the reject recommendation. The manuscript is positioned as an agenda-setting perspective piece to engage the community on HotNets' evolution, consistent with the workshop's new emphasis on ambitious and unconventional ideas. It also serves as a testbed for the very formats the referee notes could benefit larger venues. We believe acceptance would allow the community discussion the document seeks to initiate. revision: no

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: policy announcement with no derivations

full rationale

This document is a policy announcement outlining changes to HotNets 2026 and soliciting feedback. It contains no equations, predictions, derivations, or technical claims whose validity rests on untested assumptions or self-referential reductions. The central statement is a description of intent rather than a falsifiable result that reduces to its inputs by construction. No self-citations, fitted parameters, or ansatzes are present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No scientific claims, derivations, or empirical content; therefore no free parameters, axioms, or invented entities apply. This is a policy document.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5755 in / 968 out tokens · 25310 ms · 2026-06-25T19:06:38.178433+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

6 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[1]

ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets 2023)

2023. ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets 2023). https://conferences.sigcomm.org/hotnets/2023/. Accessed: 2026-06-24

2023
[2]

NINeS: New Ideas in Networked Systems

2026. NINeS: New Ideas in Networked Systems. https://2026.nines- conference.org/. Accessed: 2026-06-24

2026
[3]

Verleger

Jacob Lowell Bishop and Matthew A. Verleger. 2013. The Flipped Classroom: A Survey of the Research. InProceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. Atlanta, GA, USA. https://peer.asee.org/the- flipped-classroom-a-survey-of-the-research

2013
[4]

Lage, Glenn J

Maureen J. Lage, Glenn J. Platt, and Michael Treglia. 2000. Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment. The Journal of Economic Education31, 1 (2000), 30–43. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00220480009596759

work page doi:10.1080/00220480009596759 2000
[5]

Scott Shenker. 2022. Rethinking SIGCOMM’s Conferences: Making Form Follow Function.ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review52, 4 (2022), 26–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/3577929.3577933

work page doi:10.1145/3577929.3577933 2022
[6]

Nitya Thakkar, Mert Yuksekgonul, Jake Silberg, Animesh Garg, Nanyun Peng, Fei Sha, Rose Yu, Carl Vondrick, and James Zou. 2025. Can LLM Feedback Enhance Review Quality? A Randomized Study of 20K Reviews at ICLR 2025. arXiv:2504.09737 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2504.09737 4

arXiv 2025

[1] [1]

ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets 2023)

2023. ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (HotNets 2023). https://conferences.sigcomm.org/hotnets/2023/. Accessed: 2026-06-24

2023

[2] [2]

NINeS: New Ideas in Networked Systems

2026. NINeS: New Ideas in Networked Systems. https://2026.nines- conference.org/. Accessed: 2026-06-24

2026

[3] [3]

Verleger

Jacob Lowell Bishop and Matthew A. Verleger. 2013. The Flipped Classroom: A Survey of the Research. InProceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. Atlanta, GA, USA. https://peer.asee.org/the- flipped-classroom-a-survey-of-the-research

2013

[4] [4]

Lage, Glenn J

Maureen J. Lage, Glenn J. Platt, and Michael Treglia. 2000. Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment. The Journal of Economic Education31, 1 (2000), 30–43. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00220480009596759

work page doi:10.1080/00220480009596759 2000

[5] [5]

Scott Shenker. 2022. Rethinking SIGCOMM’s Conferences: Making Form Follow Function.ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review52, 4 (2022), 26–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/3577929.3577933

work page doi:10.1145/3577929.3577933 2022

[6] [6]

Nitya Thakkar, Mert Yuksekgonul, Jake Silberg, Animesh Garg, Nanyun Peng, Fei Sha, Rose Yu, Carl Vondrick, and James Zou. 2025. Can LLM Feedback Enhance Review Quality? A Randomized Study of 20K Reviews at ICLR 2025. arXiv:2504.09737 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2504.09737 4

arXiv 2025