Virtualization Airborne Trusted General Computing Technology
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper addresses an exciting issue. However, the literature does not provide the required motivation, and therefore, fails to sustain the readers' interest. Instead of highlighting technical content, the authors could give a general overview first and then elaborate on the other details.
The authors have clearly defined the objectives, however, it is difficult to gauge to what extent they have been achieved in the end. Moreover, if another reader can use these results and framework as a benchmark is doubtful as the proposed methodology cannot be implemented directly.
I firmly believe that this paper is targeted more toward the industry rather than the general academic audience.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
There is a need to proofread the manuscript thoroughly from language, grammar, technical as well as formatting perspective. It is suggested to proofread the manuscript by a native speaker.
There is a need to highlight contributions made in the manuscript. What novelty is proposed for the manuscript?
Literature review is missing , need to add comparative analysis table
Need to cited Some of the recent references.
the quality of some figures is too poor, see figs 5 ,6, The texts inside the figs are quite blurry;
-Add some graphical comparison with the other related methods;
Author Response
- Added literature review and related work contents, and cited current references.
- Replace Fig.5 and Fig.6.
- Corresponding to the design objectives proposed in the paper, a clear response is given in the test results analysis.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
