Marine Internet for Internetworking in Oceans: A Tutorial

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I like to congratulate you for the paper and to enhance the complexity of your approach. 

However, I recommend improving the conclusion section with further seeks of your inquiry and to underline the personal findings against the existing literature. Also, reveal your further research in the field of marine internet and what are the goals of the foreseen research.

Also, please reconsider the consistency of bibliographic items and avoid to use unchecked sources (like Wikipedia)  too many times.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The tutorial elaborately discusses about the principles, architectures and applications of marine Internet with a focus on available and under developing diverse communication systems, communication environments in oceans. The author also provide some challenging issues to be considered to promote the further development of marine Internet. From tutorial perspective, it is well organized and the contents has been sufficiently covered which will enrich the interested readers in this area. The tutorial also provides some food for thought for the researchers in this area to continue the development of marine Internet. However, the author could revise the whole paper to correct some grammatical errors or typos. Some of them are mentioned below:

-Section 2.1  "relay on"--> rely on

-Section 3 "This sections describes"--> This section describes

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is a survey about the Marine Internet - an area under development that is definitely relevant to the scope of the Future Internet journal.

Detailed comments:

It would be interesting to expand Table 2 with other details, for example, the main challenges / drawbacks / strengths (or similar) of the four approaches.

Your argument about the need for a specific Marine Internet is based on the high cost of satellite service. While that cost is quantified in Section 4, it would be good to also provide a short comparison earlier in the paper, for example Introduction, to make your argument better supported there.

It would be good to provide some trends in the communication costs, if possible. If the satellite comms are getting cheaper rapidly, for example, that would be bad for your argument.

The cost values in the Table 4 vary in a huge range e.g. 0.40 ∼ 20.85 USD per megabyte. What are the reasons for this variance?

"Propagation speed in seawater" - while I'm not an expert in physics, a quick search suggest the speed of light in water is closer to 225,000 km/s. What are your sources?

Fig. 2a - what it the role of the color (red vs blue dots)?

The conclusions are very generic and vapid. They don't summarize the knowledge presented in the paper in sufficiently precise manner. The future research directions also should be expanded motivated better.

Please check your paper for typos and language issues, for example:

WANTEs -> WANETs

The internetworking strategies [..] is discussed -> are discussed

Marine Interne -> Marine Internet

spare -> sparse

DAPRA -> DARPA

etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round  2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have addressed my comments.

Author Response

Thanks again for your reviewing. The following is the point-to-point report.

Comment 1.      Several typos still need to be addressed before final acceptance. Careful proffreading is required. For instance, in Section III, first paragraph the sentence: "This sections describes...." ---------> This section describes, has not been corrected though pointed out by Reviewer 2 in previous round

Response:

I apologize for my carelessness in the first round of revision. It has been modified in this verision, and a proof reading is conducted.

Comment 2.      Also in Table II more detailed explanantion about the additional comparison terms and evaluation scale that have been added is required (i.e. Communication Performance, Dense Deployment, etc...)

Response:

More explanation is added about the additional comparison in Section III.F on page 5.