Project grading standards
NETWORK WORKBENCH GRADING PROCEDURES FOR MARK PULLEN'S CLASSES Requirements for acceptance: All projects are to be submitted using the with the module name as established in NW (e.g. "BitStuffing.java"). Check the code file to be sure it is original and well commented. Cut up to 40% (generally this will be 1 or 2 points) for insufficient comments. The essence of these projects is for the student to understand and clearly convey how to make the protocols work. Lateness: If the date/time the email was sent is later than the due date/time for the assignment, cut ten percent of the full possible grade (in most cases this will be .5 points) per week. Specific results expected for each assignment are listed below. If the expected results are obtained give full credit (less any cuts above). Here are the standards for partial credit: No code other than the stub submitted: no credit Program at least compiles and has adequate comments: 40% Program runs but output does not show expected results: 60% Program runs and output is partially correct, or is correct but code has a clear deficiency that was not tested: 80% Where the assignment includes questions, the questions count 20% of the grade. The grader may comment on particular errors, but that is not required; the grade is based on the code and output files submitted, so the grader is required only to describe how the program falls in one of the above categories. Unusual cases that do not fit the grading standard are to be forwarded to the professor for evaluation.
Expected results for the various projects are: DLC1 - bits show as stuffed in the binary frame, in the correct position DLC2 - the CRC FCS in the last 16 bits of the frame (before the ending flag) is correct with required test inputDLC3 - the reliable DLC transfers exactly one copy of each sent "email” between host 1.1 (which is router1) and host 2.1 (which is router2), despite errors in data transmission
LAN1 - the Data Frames Sent & Received and Collisions Detected at the end of the NW output match the NW solution; also the backoff process messages in the output show the same pattern as the NW solution; ends with the same timing as the JNW solution TRN1 - the 'email' file transfers; the student answers the questions correctly WAN2 - the packet forwarding matrix output is correct; the 'email' is routed to destinations properly
Last modified: Saturday, 21 January 2017, 11:11 AM