Eliot Lear wrote:
The problem, however, is that the review comment are so
surprising that the result of SEMI workshop is very simply
proven (see below) to be "incorrect and incomplete".
are there anyone who argue against the proof?
Yes, because it's not proof.
Why? Please argue, not just state.
which means SEMI2015 has, quite seemingly, a prejudice to focus
only on "common" and/or standardized, thus, well known, functionality
of ALGs, ignoring undocumented ones.
That clearly wasn't our intent. Rather, you will note that the text you
quote from the CFP is in the form of a question. That is a good basis
for discussion, not a conclusion, as you assert.
The problem is that, as I gave a proof, only two possibilities to
keep the end to end transparency is rejected in advance and the
wrong approach, proven to be incorrect and incomplete, is raised
as a question.
That is, it is the worst basis for meaningful discussion.
Clearly the end to end argument comes into play in that discussion.
It is a waste of time and too late to let the end to end argument
comes into play so lately.
It is not, however, the beginning or end of the matter.
No, of course. With proper approaches rejected and remaining
wrong questions, no constructive discussion can begin.
All you can do is to repeat simplistic statements such as
"Yes, because it's not proof." without any reasoning.
Masataka Ohta