kumoh national institute of technology
Networked Systems Lab.

Review Comment

NSL > Works@NSL> About Review> Review Comment
"Decentralized Latency-Aware Edge Node Grouping With Fault Tolerance for Internet of Battlefield Things", The 11th International Conference on ICT Convergence October 21-23, 2020 / Ramada Plaza Hotel, Jeju Island, Korea (ICTC 2020). (Accepted)
By : Sajjad
Date : 2020-09-14
Views : 44

--------------- Reviews ------------------------------------

======= Review 1 =======

> *** Relevance: How well does the content fit the conference scope? Is this paper handling an important theme in this area?
Average (3)

> *** Completeness: Does this paper describe the problem clearly? Are the results of this paper reproducible via experiments (implementations, proofs)? How well is the result analysis done with the previous works? How clear is the paper's conclusion for the problem tackled?
Average (3)

> *** Originality: Does this paper include any novel approaches or new applications that have never been tried?
Average (3)

> *** Presentation: Are the title, abstract, and keywords appropriate? How proper is the organization and description method of this paper?
Average (3)

> *** Comments to authors: Please provide detailed comments to the authors.

This manuscript a novel scheme for edge computing for IoBT. However, it lacks performance analysis.

> *** Recommendation: Please provide your overall recommendation on the acceptance of the paper. (Final acceptance decisions will also consider literal responses to the questions below.)
Weak Accept

======= Review 2 =======

> *** Relevance: How well does the content fit the conference scope? Is this paper handling an important theme in this area?
Average (3)

> *** Completeness: Does this paper describe the problem clearly? Are the results of this paper reproducible via experiments (implementations, proofs)? How well is the result analysis done with the previous works? How clear is the paper's conclusion for the problem tackled?
Average (3)

> *** Originality: Does this paper include any novel approaches or new applications that have never been tried?
Average (3)

> *** Presentation: Are the title, abstract, and keywords appropriate? How proper is the organization and description method of this paper?
Average (3)

> *** Comments to authors: Please provide detailed comments to the authors.

This paper introduces a decentralized Internet of Bettlefield Things (IoBT) architecture which can increase the reliability of edge computing. I suggest the authors improve this paper in the following aspects.
1.The authors should clarify the difference between IBoT and normal IoT scenarios.
2.The authors should justify the parameter setting in the simulations.
3.There are a lot of grammar mistakes. For example, by adding the fault tolerance in the edge nodes will increase the effectiveness of overall battlefield scenario. should be adding the fault tolerance in the edge nodes will increase the effectiveness of overall battlefield scenario.
4.The first letter of a sentence should be capital. For instance, the soldiers will wear some sensors should be The soldiers will wear some sensors.

> *** Recommendation: Please provide your overall recommendation on the acceptance of the paper. (Final acceptance decisions will also consider literal responses to the questions below.)
Neutral (2)


======= Review 3 =======

> *** Relevance: How well does the content fit the conference scope? Is this paper handling an important theme in this area?
Average (3)

> *** Completeness: Does this paper describe the problem clearly? Are the results of this paper reproducible via experiments (implementations, proofs)? How well is the result analysis done with the previous works? How clear is the paper's conclusion for the problem tackled?
Average (3)

> *** Originality: Does this paper include any novel approaches or new applications that have never been tried?
Average (3)

> *** Presentation: Are the title, abstract, and keywords appropriate? How proper is the organization and description method of this paper?
Marginal (2)

> *** Comments to authors: Please provide detailed comments to the authors.
Authors designed a decentralized architecture to utilize IoT in battlefield. They proposed an edge node grouping method to deal with the fault tolerance for maintaining the edge computing, since the edge computing can reduce the transition latency if the data is not sent back to the server for computation.

Advantage:
1. The author proposed a simple and effect method to improve the system reliability.
2. The experimental result shows the proposed group method can reduce the risk of missing data and the power consumption which are important in such fatal environment.

Major Comments:
1. The authors proposed a grouping method to build a set of backup nodes for replacing the failure edge node. However, the soldiers and devices are dynamically moving around the battlefield which may cause the members of group change frequently. The authors should explain the influence by frequent member changing.
2. In section I, there are several related works about fault tolerance in IoT. Authors should take them as the competitors to prove the strength of their proposed method.
3. In the last paragraph of section II-B, Neighbor nodes in the candidate state , it seems to be the explanation of different kinds of nodes, but the types of state and the priority are both not defined. The authors should add a flow chart or graph to illustrate the relation between different kinds of nodes.
4. In section II-B, the meaning of summation in equation (3) is unclear, so it confuse the reader to understand the sentence in the second paragraph of section II-B, With increasing number of replica the reliability will be decreased , which is not intuitive, since the failure is of less chance to happen if with more backup nodes. The author should add more explanations to clarify it.
5. Strongly recommend the manuscript should be proofread. There are too many typos and grammar errors which cause low readability. For example, 1) in the second paragraph of section I, computation capacity ween need to pay should be computation capacity we need to pay . 2) in the 13-th sentence of the first paragraph in section II, All the soldiers attached to the soldiers should be All the sensors attached to the soldiers.
6. In Figure 4, the y-axis is percentage, so the ticks should not be less than one. However, if the scales are really less than 1%, the contribution of this paper is not much.
Minor Comments:
1. The "aware" and "with" in title, Decentralized Latency-Aware Edge Node Grouping With Fault Tolerance for Internet of Battlefield Things, should be in lower case.
2. The letters in Figure 1 is unclear.
3. The metric, mean time to failure, is abbreviated to MMTF, but the common abbreviation should be MTTF.
4. In equation (1), \gamma is not defined.
5. In equation (5), variable i is not defined and its also used in \eta_i which is located at the next sentence of equation (1). Are these two variable i the same?
6. In equation (5), the summation is from i=1 to i, which makes no sense.

> *** Recommendation: Please provide your overall recommendation on the acceptance of the paper. (Final acceptance decisions will also consider literal responses to the questions below.)
Neutral (2)