CoNEXT Related Work

Position the paper for a networking reviewer who knows the field's flagships cold. At CoNEXT, related work is not a literature dump; it is the delta argument — what your contribution adds over the closest prior systems and measurements — written so a double-anonymous reviewer can locate your paper in the networking landscape in one read.

Cover the lanes a networking reviewer expects

A CoNEXT reviewer will mentally check whether you engage the right bodies of work:

• The flagship conferences: SIGCOMM, NSDI, and CoNEXT itself for systems and architecture.
• Measurement: IMC (and PAM) for internet/system measurement methodology and findings.
• Performance/modeling: SIGMETRICS for analysis and evaluation methodology.
• Wireless/mobile: MobiCom, MobiSys, and related venues when relevant.
• The journal and letters record: IEEE/ACM ToN, CCR (SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review), and now PACMNET itself.

Missing the lane your paper lives in — e.g., a measurement paper that ignores IMC methodology, or a data-plane paper that ignores the recent SIGCOMM/NSDI switch-hardware line — reads as unfamiliarity and invites a change-list item in a one-shot revision.

Delta-first positioning

Write each comparison as a delta sentence, not a summary:

Prior work X [SIGCOMM'YY] measures/builds <what> but <the gap on the real target>;
we <the specific advance> and show it on <the real platform/trace>.

• Lead with the closest prior work, not the oldest or most famous.
• Make the delta concrete and testable: a new mechanism, a measured phenomenon prior work missed, a platform prior work did not evaluate on, a scale prior work did not reach.
• Avoid "to the best of our knowledge, we are the first" unless it is literally true and checkable; a measurement reviewer will know a counterexample.

Keep self-citation anonymous

CoNEXT is double-anonymous, so your own prior work is a leak surface:

• Cite your prior papers in the third person ("Prior work [12] proposed..."), never "our previous system."
• Do not reveal a system lineage that identifies the group (e.g., "the successor to OurSys").
• If a comparison genuinely requires your non-anonymous artifact, use the anonymized location and describe it without owner-identifying detail.

Positioning against CoNEXT's own recent programs

Because CoNEXT runs two cycles a year and publishes in PACMNET, the venue's own recent output moves fast:

• Scan the last two CoNEXT programs and recent PACMNET issues for work in your subarea; a paper that ignores a directly relevant CoNEXT/PACMNET paper from last cycle looks careless.
• If your work extends a CoNEXT paper, state the delta precisely — reviewers may include that paper's authors.

Structure and length

• Related work can be its own section or woven into the introduction and design sections; CoNEXT tolerates both, but the delta must be visible early regardless.
• Under the acmart budget, references are unlimited — so cite generously, but keep the prose tight; a wall of one-line summaries wastes body pages you need for evidence.

Failure modes

Failure	Why it hurts at CoNEXT	Fix
Literature list with no delta	Reviewer cannot place your contribution	Rewrite each entry as a delta sentence
Missing the closest prior system/measurement	Reads as unfamiliarity; revision risk	Lead with the nearest work and its gap
First-person self-citation	Breaks double-anonymity	Third-person, no lineage reveal
Ignoring the right lane (IMC/NSDI/SIGMETRICS)	Signals you are a visitor	Engage the venue where your method lives
Over-claiming "first"	A reviewer knows a counterexample	Scope the novelty to the checkable delta

Output format

[Lanes covered] SIGCOMM / NSDI / IMC / SIGMETRICS / MobiCom / ToN-CCR-PACMNET as relevant
[Closest prior work] <papers + the specific gap each leaves on the real target>
[Delta sentences] <one per closest work>
[Anonymity] third-person self-citation; no system-lineage leak
[Recency] last two CoNEXT programs + recent PACMNET issues checked? yes/no