Reliable Application Layer Routing Using Decentralized Identifiers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Before using Abbreviations, it is required to define what they stand for. For example, IoT in the Abstract, and SDN in keywords.

The introduction section does not include sufficient information and references.

Line 61-62: The sentence must be checked grammatically.  

The last paragraph’s statements in the introduction section don’t match the following sections of the paper. Please revise the description of the structure of the article in the introduction.

Please provide detailed information on the robustness of this approach. 

The paper requires proofreading. 

Author Response

Thanks for your review. We have addressed all your comments.  Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents a solution that extends an  Information-Centric Networking (ICN)-like architecture based on Software-Defined Networking (SDN) for facilitating effective wireless communications. The study poses a significant impact on the domain and is suitable for the journal. However, there are several English language issues that make reading the paper quite difficult. The authors used several complex sentences and there are syntax errors that need to be revised accordingly.

1. A moderate English language editing of the entire paper is requested.

2. The authors used several abbreviations that were not defined in their first usage. Please, define the full meanings of all acronyms first and then the abbreviations in brackets.

3. The authors claim that the proposed solution is lightweight and it enables novel trust relationships. However, there is no clarity about this statement in the manuscript. I suggest that results should be well elaborated to justify their claims.

4. The related work is destitute and a robust elaboration on the state-of-the-art is requested.

5. In Figures 1 and 3, the network elements in the SDN network should be labeled appropriately.

6. The algorithms need to be written using standard formats.

7. The computational complexity of the routing protocol needs to be analyzed and discussed.

8. The authors should perform security examinations of the proposed algorithm using standard performance metrics.

9. The results require an extension and comprehensive comparison with the state-of-the-art.

10. Up to three recent and authoritative reference materials in this domain from 2022 should be added accordingly.

Author Response

Thanks for your review. We have addressed all your comments.  Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is well-written but some arrangements can be done such as put the related work in the top section (not the last section), please avoid one sentence one paragraph.

The content should be improved with these following comments:

- Can you explain the relation between SDN controller and ICN registrar? Because they should have some kind communication to generate rules from the domain name

- The implementation and measurement topology is very general becasue there is no number of edges, amount of traffic that are used

- Is there any software source code or data that you can share so that everybody can try your solutions

Author Response

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for considering the previous comments. Final proofreading is required. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed my earlier comments.