### Rating (1--4):
+ 3: Weak Accept -- This paper may have flaws, but I would not argue against it at a major conference
### What did this paper do well?
+ Proposing a new technique to jam enemy's wireless communication while maintaining connections between authorized devices. This can be a great life-saving tool in combat.
+ Prototypes have close-to-0 packet loss while unauthorized devices suffer 100% packet loss.
+ Impressive mathematical model
### Where did this paper fall short?
+ The paper did not cover situations of multidirectional antenas and/or adversarial jammers in parallel with ally jamming.
### What did you learn from reading this paper?
+ The complexity of how wireless signals work (such as synchronizing by correlation and its equations, frequency offset and sampling offset)
+ The greater complexity of making ally friendly jamming work (3 technical challenges)
+ Pilot Frequencies
+ IMD shield and how is it different from the method proposed by this paper
### What questions do you have about the paper or the area?
+ How many different ally jammers can be "tolerated" by an authorized receiver ?
+ What is the probability of adversaries capture and reverse engineering the signals sent by the receiver in order to mimic the noise canceling activities of authorized receivers?
+ Why modulation and encoding may reduce the randomness of jamming symbols? (I may see why with modulation but can't figure out why encoding can be a problem)
+ At what point clock difference will cause troubles for authorized device to synchronize with ally jammers?
+ In 4F, when dealing with multiple authorized transmitters, does one transmitter have to wait for its turn? ("...then there is no other ongoing transmissions and the authorized transmitter will start to transmit...")
+ What is the minimum hardware requirement for the receiver ? (considering there are some overhead and depending on how many ally jammers are there, the overhead can be high and devices like wireless iot may have issues)
