Optimization of the Decision Criterion for Increasing the Bandwidth Utilization by Means of the Novel Effective DBA Algorithm in NG-PON2 Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments

The abstract should be focused on the main issue addressed in the article and the novelty proposed. I recommend the abstract to rephrased as shown below:

To achieve a better bandwidth utilization of dedicated wavelengths in next-generation passive optical networks (NG-PON2), this paper is focused on the novel effective dynamic bandwidth allocation algorithm with adaptive allocation of wavelengths to ONU units as well as the optimization of the decision criterion. The algorithm and the proposed method are tested and evaluated through simulation with actual traffic data.

A significant parameter regarding the application of the algorithm (and the optimization of Rh) is that of the time needed for the described process. The author should include a comment on that.

Since section 2 contains background material, it should be considerably shortened (particularly the part between lines 82 and 163). Besides, the last paragraph of section 2 (article’s structure) should be placed at the end of section 1.

There are abbreviations that appear without the respective full terms. For example, DBA and EDBA are not explained what they stand for.

The paper needs editing regarding the use of English (there are several typos and expression errors, e.g. in lines 36, 40, 64, 87, 106, 135, 218 etc.).

Author Response

The abstract should be focused on the main issue addressed in the article and the novelty proposed. I recommend the abstract to rephrased as shown below:

To achieve a better bandwidth utilization of dedicated wavelengths in next-generation passive optical networks (NG-PON2), this paper is focused on the novel effective dynamic bandwidth allocation algorithm with adaptive allocation of wavelengths to ONU units as well as the optimization of the decision criterion. The algorithm and the proposed method are tested and evaluated through simulation with actual traffic data.

Response: The comment is accepted; the abstract is arranged.

A significant parameter regarding the application of the algorithm (and the optimization of Rh) is that of the time needed for the described process. The author should include a comment on that.

Response: I'd like to thank Reviewer for a mentioned comment that makes this paper better. This comment helps us to improve this paper in more detail. The second paragraph in the Section 2 is also revised about this time and more details about the time of the DBA process are added into the second paragraph in the Section 3.

Since section 2 contains background material, it should be considerably shortened (particularly the part between lines 82 and 163). Besides, the last paragraph of section 2 (article’s structure) should be placed at the end of section 1.

Response: The comment is accepted. A background material from the Section 2 is moved to the Section 1. From my viewpoint, this material is important for understanding a situation about considered algorithms in NG-PON2 network, therefore it is not missing. The last paragraph of the Section 2 is arranged and placed at the end of the Section 1.

There are abbreviations that appear without the respective full terms. For example, DBA and EDBA are not explained what they stand for.

Response: The comment is accepted; abbreviations are explained correctly now.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper needs editing regarding the use of English (there are several typos and expression errors, e.g. in lines 36, 40, 64, 87, 106, 135, 218 etc.).

Response: The comment is accepted; typos and expression errors are corrected. In some cases, I accepted suggestions and corrections from the MS Word Proofing in the English (United States). I apologize for such cases.

I am highly pleased to have received your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper proposes a dynamic bandwidth allocation algorithm for NG-PON2 networks. However, some parts must be improved. The main reviewer concerns are the following,

·       The abstract is not clear since some abbreviations are not defined.

·       In the reviewer opinion section 2 should be renamed as “Related Work”

·       It is difficult to understand what the novelty of this work is. In the end of section 2 the main contributions of this work should be pointed out and linked to the previous SoA description. What is the novelty regarding the algorithms described above? As it is very generic.

·       In Abstract it is mentioned that a new dynamic bandwidth allocation algorithm is proposed. However, the reviewer cannot see any derived algorithm. Section 3 is too generic, and it is hard to see the proposed algorithm description. The proposed algorithm must be clearly derived and deeply discussed.

·       The abbreviation EDBA is not defined. Is the EDBA algorithm not known? What is new in Section 3?

·       Section 4 presents simulation results. However, the results are not compared with other solution proposed in the literature to see the effectiveness of the proposed solution.

·       Some abbreviations are not defined.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

This paper proposes a dynamic bandwidth allocation algorithm for NG-PON2 networks. However, some parts must be improved. The main reviewer concerns are the following,

• The abstract is not clear since some abbreviations are not defined.

Response: The comment is accepted; the abstract is arranged.

• In the reviewer opinion section 2 should be renamed as “Related Work”

Response: I'd like to thank Reviewer for a mentioned opinion. The Section 2 is re-named within the context of its content.

• It is difficult to understand what the novelty of this work is. In the end of section 2 the main contributions of this work should be pointed out and linked to the previous SoA description. What is the novelty regarding the algorithms described above? As it is very generic.

Response: I'd like to thank Reviewer for a mentioned comment that makes this paper better. This comment helps us to improve this paper in more detail. The second paragraph in the Section 2 is revised about the novelty of this work and some new parts are added into the fourth paragraph in this section.

• In Abstract it is mentioned that a new dynamic bandwidth allocation algorithm is proposed. However, the reviewer cannot see any derived algorithm. Section 3 is too generic, and it is hard to see the proposed algorithm description. The proposed algorithm must be clearly derived and deeply discussed.

Response: I'd like to thank Reviewer for a mentioned opinion. The Section 4 is devoted to the proposed algorithm with more details.

• The abbreviation EDBA is not defined. Is the EDBA algorithm not known? What is new in Section 3?

Response: The comment is accepted; abbreviations are explained correctly now.

Response: The Section 3 is re-named within the context of its content. The accent is on the optimization of the decision criterion and on its importance of the bandwidth utilization efficiency.

• Section 4 presents simulation results. However, the results are not compared with other solution proposed in the literature to see the effectiveness of the proposed solution.

Response: I'd like to thank Reviewer for a mentioned comment. However, results can’t be compared with other solutions because the implementation of the novel EDBA algorithm in NG-PON2 networks in the novelty of this work. Moreover, Moreover, the optimization of the decision criterion also presents the second novelty and it is not considered in other works at all.

• Some abbreviations are not defined.

 Response: The comment is accepted; abbreviations are explained correctly now.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Response: The comment is accepted; some typos and expressions are corrected. In some cases, I accepted suggestions and corrections from the MS Word Proofing in the English (United States). I apologize for such cases.

I am highly pleased to have received your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents an optimization method to decide for the increasing bandwidth utilization in PON2 networks. The content is of interest, however, the manuscript requires major modifications before publication.

1. Abstract: all the abbreviated terms should be described analytically.

2. Introduction: The author does not convey clearly the novelty of this work. It should explain in bulleted form the explicit contributions of this work against existing literature. Furthermore, a general restructuring of the manucript is required. For example the last two paragraphs from Section 2, must be transferred to the Introduction.

3. In the Introduction, a Table will help where existing research attempts would be listed and assessed.

4. The proposed algorithm should be provided in a flow-chart or other way (e.g. step-by-step) in order to help the reader understand better the introduced procedure.

5. Finally, quantitative results should be provided and compared with other research efforts. A Table for this purpose would also help.

none

Author Response

This paper presents an optimization method to decide for the increasing bandwidth utilization in PON2 networks. The content is of interest, however, the manuscript requires major modifications before publication.

1. Abstract: all the abbreviated terms should be described analytically.

Response: The comment is accepted; the abstract is arranged.

2. Introduction: The author does not convey clearly the novelty of this work. It should explain in bulleted form the explicit contributions of this work against existing literature. Furthermore, a general restructuring of the manuscript is required. For example the last two paragraphs from Section 2, must be transferred to the Introduction.

Response: I'd like to thank Reviewer for a mentioned comment that makes this paper better. This comment helps us to improve this paper in more detail. The second paragraph in the Section 2 is revised about the novelty of this work and some new parts are added into the fourth paragraph in this section.

Response: The comment is accepted. A background material from the Section 2 is moved to the Section 1. From my viewpoint, this material is important for understanding a situation about considered algorithms in NG-PON2 network, therefore it is not missing. The last paragraph of the Section 2 is arranged and placed at the end of the Section 1.

3. In the Introduction, a Table will help where existing research attempts would be listed and assessed.

Response: I'd like to thank Reviewer for a mentioned opinion. A Table can be realized in a following paper that will be more summary and review. Now, I introduce specific algorithms considered for NG-PON2 networks related to my research interest.

4. The proposed algorithm should be provided in a flow-chart or other way (e.g. step-by-step) in order to help the reader understand better the introduced procedure.

Response: I'd like to thank Reviewer for a mentioned opinion. The Subsection 4.1 is devoted to the proposed algorithm with more details.

5. Finally, quantitative results should be provided and compared with other research efforts. A Table for this purpose would also help.

Response: I'd like to thank Reviewer for a mentioned comment. However, results can’t be compared with other solutions because the implementation of the novel EDBA algorithm in NG-PON2 networks in the novelty of this work. Moreover, Moreover, the optimization of the decision criterion also presents the second novelty and it is not considered in other works at all.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This paper presents an optimization method to decide for the increasing bandwidth utilization in PON2 networks. The content is of interest, however, the manuscript requires major modifications before publication.

1. Abstract: all the abbreviated terms should be described analytically.
2. Introduction: The author does not convey clearly the novelty of this work. It should explain in bulleted form the explicit contributions of this work against existing literature. Furthermore, a general restructuring of the manuscript is required. For example the last two paragraphs from Section 2, must be transferred to the Introduction.
3. In the Introduction, a Table will help where existing research attempts would be listed and assessed.
4. The proposed algorithm should be provided in a flow-chart or other way (e.g. step-by-step) in order to help the reader understand better the introduced procedure.
5. Finally, quantitative results should be provided and compared with other research efforts. A Table for this purpose would also help.

I am highly pleased to have received your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract should be focused on the main issue addressed in the article and the novelty proposed. I recommend the abstract to rephrased as shown below:

To achieve a better bandwidth utilization of dedicated wavelengths in next-generation passive optical networks (NG-PON2), this paper is focused on the novel effective dynamic bandwidth allocation algorithm with adaptive allocation of wavelengths to ONU units as well as the optimization of the decision criterion. The algorithm and the proposed method are tested and evaluated through simulation with actual traffic data.

Response: The comment is accepted; the abstract is arranged.

Reviewer’s comment: The abstract is not arranged as proposed but this was just a recommendation of mine. I am satisfied with the new version of the abstract.

A significant parameter regarding the application of the algorithm (and the optimization of Rh) is that of the time needed for the described process. The author should include a comment on that.

Response: I'd like to thank Reviewer for a mentioned comment that makes this paper better. This comment helps us to improve this paper in more detail. The second paragraph in the Section 2 is also revised about this time and more details about the time of the DBA process are added into the second paragraph in the Section 3.

Reviewer’s comment: I am satisfied by the author’s response.

Since section 2 contains background material, it should be considerably shortened (particularly the part between lines 82 and 163). Besides, the last paragraph of section 2 (article’s structure) should be placed at the end of section 1.

Response: The comment is accepted. A background material from the Section 2 is moved to the Section 1. From my viewpoint, this material is important for understanding a situation about considered algorithms in NG-PON2 network, therefore it is not missing. The last paragraph of the Section 2 is arranged and placed at the end of the Section 1.

Reviewer’s comment: I am satisfied by the author’s response and I will accept his argument about the background material.

There are abbreviations that appear without the respective full terms. For example, DBA and EDBA are not explained what they stand for.

Response: The comment is accepted; abbreviations are explained correctly now.

Reviewer’s comment: A minor comment is the full term of EDBA to be moved to line 171 (first reference to EDBA).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper needs editing regarding the use of English (there are several typos and expression errors, e.g. in lines 36, 40, 64, 87, 106, 135, 218 etc.).

Response: The comment is accepted; typos and expression errors are corrected. In some cases, I accepted suggestions and corrections from the MS Word Proofing in the English (United States). I apologize for such cases.

Reviewer’s comment: English I much better now. Only a minor editing is needed.

English is much better in the new version of the paper. Only a minor editing is needed.

Author Response

The abstract should be focused on the main issue addressed in the article and the novelty proposed. I recommend the abstract to rephrased as shown below:

To achieve a better bandwidth utilization of dedicated wavelengths in next-generation passive optical networks (NG-PON2), this paper is focused on the novel effective dynamic bandwidth allocation algorithm with adaptive allocation of wavelengths to ONU units as well as the optimization of the decision criterion. The algorithm and the proposed method are tested and evaluated through simulation with actual traffic data.

Response: The comment is accepted; the abstract is arranged.

Reviewer’s comment: The abstract is not arranged as proposed but this was just a recommendation of mine. I am satisfied with the new version of the abstract.

Response2: The abstract is arranged with regard to comments and suggestions from all reviewers. I am highly pleased to have received your inspirational comments.

Since section 2 contains background material, it should be considerably shortened (particularly the part between lines 82 and 163). Besides, the last paragraph of section 2 (article’s structure) should be placed at the end of section 1.

Response: The comment is accepted. A background material from the Section 2 is moved to the Section 1. From my viewpoint, this material is important for understanding a situation about considered algorithms in NG-PON2 network, therefore it is not missing. The last paragraph of the Section 2 is arranged and placed at the end of the Section 1.

Reviewer’s comment: I am satisfied by the author’s response and I will accept his argument about the background material.

Response2: I'd like to thank Reviewer for an encouraging exchange of ideas that makes this paper better.

There are abbreviations that appear without the respective full terms. For example, DBA and EDBA do not explain what they stand for.

Response: The comment is accepted; abbreviations are explained correctly now.

Reviewer’s comment: A minor comment is the full term of EDBA to be moved to line 171 (first reference to EDBA).

Response2: The comment is accepted; the full term of EDBA is moved to the line 171.

 Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper needs editing regarding the use of English (there are several typos and expression errors, e.g. in lines 36, 40, 64, 87, 106, 135, 218 etc.).

Response: The comment is accepted; typos and expression errors are corrected. In some cases, I accepted suggestions and corrections from the MS Word Proofing in the English (United States). I apologize for such cases.

Reviewer’s comment: English I much better now. Only a minor editing is needed.

Response2: I'd like to thank Reviewer for comments that makes this paper better.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has satisfactory addressed the reviewer concerns. 

 Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

I'd like to thank the Reviewer for his comments that makes this paper better.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The author answered to all of my concerns. I believe the paper can be published.

The author answered to all of my concerns. I believe the paper can be published.

Author Response

I'd like to thank the Reviewer for his comments that makes this paper better.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf