Graph convolutional neural networks have demonstrated promising performance in attributed graph learning, thanks to the use of graph convolution that effectively combines graph structures and node features for learning node representations. However, one intrinsic limitation of the commonly adopted 1-D graph convolution is that it only exploits graph connectivity for feature smoothing, which may lead to inferior performance on sparse and noisy real-world attributed networks. To address this problem, we propose to explore relational information among node attributes to complement node relations for representation learning. In particular, we propose to use 2-D graph convolution to jointly model the two kinds of relations and develop a computationally efficient dimensionwise separable 2-D graph convolution (DSGC). Theoretically, we show that DSGC can reduce intra-class variance of node features on both the node dimension and the attribute dimension to facilitate learning. Empirically, we demonstrate that by incorporating attribute relations, DSGC achieves significant performance gain over state-of-the-art methods on node classification and clustering on several real-world attributed networks.
The authors propose a method that incorporates two types of graphs into a graph convolutional networks:
(1) the given graph, which the authors refer to as node affinity graph, and 
(2) the graph that models an affinity between node attribute values.
The main contribution of their work is a type of graph convolution that combines convolutions operating on these two graphs. 
The paper is densely written and provides several mathematical derivations that are unnecessary to convey the proposed method. Personally, I don't see any benefits in having sections 3.1-3.4 in the main paper. The method actually proposed and evaluated in the paper is described in section 3.5. Sections 3.1-3.4 could be moved to an appendix. They confuse the reader more than they help. (They demonstrate knowledge of graph signal processing on the parts of the authors but little more.)
Trying to provide some theoretical analysis of the proposed method (and standard graph convolutions) by showing that the intra-class variance is reduced is laudable. The theorems, however, only hold under strong assumptions and could, in my opinion, also be moved to an appendix. In the end, they don't have any bearing on the performance of the methods using real-world datasets. Adding some experiments to analyse to what extent the assumptions made by the theorems are met in the given datasets would be an interesting addition to the paper. 
The authors discuss related work sufficiently with one exception: there has been recent work on learning the structure of graph neural networks. See for example [1]. The structure is derived/bootstrapped using node attribute similarities and it is shown that augmenting the graph with these new edges improves accuracy significantly. I would like to point the authors specifically to Figure 2 and Table 1 in said paper, where the authors show that adding edges (e.g., based on some node attribute affinity before or during training) is beneficial and improves accuracy. It would therefore be interesting to see how the authors proposed 2-D convolution would compare to a baseline where the edges based on attribute affinity are added to the original (node affinity) graph. It is a (somewhat simpler) alternative way to combine node affinity and node attribute graphs. 
[1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.11960.pdf
The empirical results are mixed. Due to the numerous different variations of DSGC for which experiments were conducted, the difference between DSGC and existing methods is probably not statistically significant (a bonferroni correction was not performed to counteract the multiple comparisons). 
Overall this an interesting paper that introduces a way to incorporate node attribute affinity graphs. It is too densely written and could benefit from moving the theoretical parts to an appendix. They don't really add much to the core of the paper. Moreover, the authors do not consider approaches that also add edges to the graph (based, e.g., on attribute value similarity or during learning, see e.g. [1]) showing that that improves performance even when using a vanilla GCN. A comparison to a baseline that simply adds edges based on attribute affinity to the graph and applied a vanilla GCN should be part of the evaluation. The empirical results are mixed and don't show a clear advantage of the proposed method.