Weighted-CAPIC Caching Algorithm for Priority Traffic in Named Data Network

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the minor comments below which will help to improve your paper.   ---------------------------------------------------- -The author should try to provides the highest cache hit ratio for the priority class and network by Dynamic-CAPIC.   -The Author should add more detail about Weighted-CAPIC provides better performance with the same complexity as Dynamic-CAPIC.   - The Author should add the proof of outperform the Dynamic-CAPIC, Static-CAPIC, and LCD+Sharing scheme stay in the same path strtch as Dynamic-CAPIC.   - Too many the same sentence in the journal. So the Author should revise it.   - Figure 1. Flowchart of Weighted CAPIC is so mess up. So the Author should check it again.   - What is diffence between Weighted-CAPIC & Dynamic-CAPIC in this paper.    - The author should show the proof of Weighted-CAPIC is 14.6% smaller than LCD+Sharing, 7% 206 smaller than Dynamic-CAPIC, and 2% larger than Static-CAPIC.   - The author should explain figure 2.Cache hit ratio and path stretch of class 1 for various level of request.   -Please explain Figure 3. Cache hit ratio and path stretch of class 2 for various level of request.   -Please Add more detail in Figure 4.Cache hit ratio and path stretch of class 3 for various level of request   -Please explain Figure 5. Network cache hit ratio for various level of request   -The author should explain about pros and cons of what is difference between Dynamic-CAPIC and Weighted-CAPIC.    -The Author should explain Figure 6. Cache hit ratio and path stretch of class 1 for various request rate difference   -Please add more detail in Figure 7. Cache hit ratio and path stretch of class 2 for various request rate difference   -Page 12 is so many space, So the author should move the text in there.   -please explain Figure 8. Cache hit ratio and path stretch of class 3 for various request rate difference.   -Please add more information in Figure 9. Network cache hit ratio for various request rate difference.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised manuscript, "Weighted-CAPIC Caching Algorithm for Priority Traffic in Named Data Network," for publication in the Future Internet Journal. We appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of your suggestions. Those changes are highlighted in the manuscript. Please see the attachment below, for a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

- Grammar and spelling should be checked. There are a lot of capital letters at inappropriate places. 
- References should be added.
You should comment and comapre with other competative methods. See e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2015.09.011
- Some references are not cited properly. 
- Is [2] actually internet link:
https://www.sandvine.com/hubfs/Sandvine_Redesign_2019/Downloads/2022/Phenomena%20Reports/GIPR%202022/Sandvine%20GIPR%20January%202022.pdf?hsCtaTracking=18fff708-438e-4e16-809d-34c3c89f4957%7C067d9d28-ef90-4645-9d46-c70d10279247
- You simulated two scenarios. It would be nice to have more grounds for more general conclusions. You could include other possibilities and include your scenarios in greater overall assessment.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised manuscript, "Weighted-CAPIC Caching Algorithm for Priority Traffic in Named Data Network," for publication in the Future Internet Journal. We appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript and are grateful for the insightful comments and valuable improvements to our paper. We have incorporated most of your suggestions. Those changes are highlighted in the manuscript. Please see the attachment below, for a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

All changes asked for including necessary English-related revisions, done.