“Metrology” Approach to Data Streams Initiated by Internet Services in the Local Networks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to the authors:

1. The references in this paper have been published long time ago, and there is no reference which has been published within recent three years.

2.  Also, it is too difficult for the Reviewer to see the motivation and contribution of this paper. Also, the main difference between this paper and the existing ones is not shown clearly. The Reviewer recommend that the authors should update the reference list, and then add more explanation about main difference and main contribution of this paper in the Introduction Section

3. The authors should not use different fonts in the paper. Please check the paragraph “The answer to the latter question may be affirmative … are distinguished [7]:”, and correct all the similar errors in this paper.

4. The Conclusions Section must be re-written. This section must provide the new obtained results, recommendation in techniques and/or designs, etc. It is also written by a paragraph.

5. The reference section must be re-organized with the same format with the text in this paper.

6. It is too difficult for the Reviewer to evaluate the application of the proposed method in this paper. Please add more explanation/discussion for the obtained results.

7. This paper is not well-prepared, there are a lot of typos and errors, such as

- At page 1: “1. Introduction.” . Please delete the period (please correct the similar errors in all the sections and subsection)

- Figure 1, figure 19 are not clear enough to see in PDF format

- Table 3 is over margin

- Equations in this paper should be numbered

- At page 11 of 17, there are a lot of typos as presenting the mathematical notations

Author Response

1. The references in this paper have been published long time ago, and there is no reference which has been published within recent three years. >>>> I have added new references
2. Also, it is too difficult for the Reviewer to see the motivation and contribution of this paper. Also, the main difference between this paper and the existing ones is not shown clearly. The Reviewer recommend that the authors should update the reference list, and then add more explanation about main difference and main contribution of this paper in the Introduction Section >>> For a long time, I not only developed the presented "metrology" approach to the data flow in computer networks, but spent time for looking a similar or close approaches in Internet. I have found nothing close to this. It is also a reason because the list of references was pure. In this paper, I would like to attract the attention of colleagues to this approach. The approach demonstrates s merit. But it is a very beginning stage, not a final.
3. The authors should not use different fonts in the paper. Please check the paragraph “The answer to the latter question may be affirmative … are distinguished [7]:”, and correct all the similar errors in this paper. >>> I am sorry
4. The Conclusions Section must be re-written. This section must provide the new obtained results, recommendation in techniques and/or designs, etc. It is also written by a paragraph. >>>
5. The reference section must be re-organized with the same format with the text in this paper.>>>>Thanks
6. It is too difficult for the Reviewer to evaluate the application of the proposed method in this paper. Please add more explanation/discussion for the obtained results.>>> Thanks. The idea was the following: if we know the elementary flux produced by the service, if we know the statistic of the user activity, if the data fluxes in the local network are additive, we can compute the total flux in dependence on the internet services and users activity. After that, we can also solve inverse problems. For example, compute the capacity of the local network for specific users.
7. This paper is not well-prepared, there are a lot of typos and errors, such as

- At page 1: “1. Introduction.” . Please delete the period (please correct the similar errors in all the sections and subsection)

- Figure 1, figure 19 are not clear enough to see in PDF format

- Table 3 is over margin

- Equations in this paper should be numbered

- At page 11 of 17, there are a lot of typos as presenting the mathematical notations >>>The basic principles of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was formulated briefly for the convenience of the reader, because there exist other tests

Reviewer 2 Report

Try to make the article more interesting for for IT-specialists., in particular for network and software architects. To do this, it isdesirable to give an example of using the results and show the effect. I is  also desirable to formulate the problem more clearly from the point of view of distributed computing.

Author Response

Try to make the article more interesting for for IT-specialists., in particular for network and software architects. To do this, it isdesirable to give an example of using the results and show the effect. I is  also desirable to formulate the problem more clearly from the point of view of distributed computing.>>> I thank you. I add two subsections "An application" to give the examples.

I am sorry, but I do not feel myself an expert in the distributing computing to write on this subject now.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all the Reviewer' comments. The Reviewer can recommend the accepted status for this paper. However, there are still some minor recommendation as follows:

1. The authors must delete changing track in this paper, and resubmit the paper. It is too difficult for the Reviewer to follow this paper in this form.

2. It seems Fig. 5 is over margin

3. Typos in Tab.4, i.e., "Tab.4. Skewness... function"

4. Please check paragraph below equation 1, i.e., mathematical notations are not placed on the same straight line with text.

5. It seems Tab.7 is over margin

6. White space at the end of page 17/22. Please correct this.

7. References in the reference section are still in different size with the text above.

Author Response

1. The authors must delete changing track in this paper, and resubmit the paper. It is too difficult for the Reviewer to follow this paper in this form. >>> I am downloading the final version of the paper.
2. It seems Fig. 5 is over margin >>> Fig.5 is now a single picture
3. Typos in Tab.4, i.e., "Tab.4. Skewness... function". >>>It was used excess kurtosis. Correction is done
4. Please check paragraph below equation 1, i.e., mathematical notations are not placed on the same straight line with text. >>> Sorry, the formulas were typed in size 10.5pt. Corrections are done
5. It seems Tab.7 is over margin >>> I do not present in Tab.7 the column “number of users=2000” because 2000 is not realistic number. In the previous tables, the column “number of users=2000” was present to demonstrate the tendency, that the density tends to the normal low in accordance with the general theory, but it becomes close to the normal low for not realistic large number of users
6. White space at the end of page 17/22. Please correct this. >>> Corrected
7. References in the reference section are still in different size with the text above. >>> In the “References” font is 12pt. I am sorry, probably I did not understand this comment. The references were checked. I have found  few typos, sorry. The corrections are done.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc