An NDN Cache-Optimization Strategy Based on Dynamic Popularity and Replacement Value

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I included below some comments and suggestions for the editors

and for you. I think they are not so hard to solve in order to make your work

publishable.

 

<<Honored Editorial Board,

 

As the title suggests, this paper aims at the problems of a low cache hit rate and high average routing hops in Named Data Networking (NDN) and proposes a cache optimization strategy that can effectively improve the cache hit rate and reduce the average routing hops for user request responses compared with other traditional NDN caching strategies.

 

After reading the manuscript, I think there are still some issues to consider and solve.

 

I will start with format considerations and I will continue with content-related ones.

 

For the first class (format), I mention below:

• English language and style issues, Grammarly (https://app.grammarly.com) on default settings detected only for the text block resulting from the concatenation of Title+Abstract+Keywords+Conclusions the following:

• 0(zero) critical alerts (correctness issues)

• but 21 more advanced ones, namely: Passive voice misuse (7 problems), Word choice (6), Hard-to-read text (3), Wordy sentences (1), and more (4). This meant a total score of 82 out of 100 (maximum) for the four-component sample above. Moreover, since none of the authors does appear to be a native English speaker, I suggest a total revision of the English language and style for the entire article using Grammarly or other specialized tools;

• In addition, the paper does not follow the specific structure of the journal, namely:
  Author Information, Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Materials & Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions, etc., as indicated at: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/electronics/instructions

• The authors must avoid ending some sections/subsections with tables, figures, or listings  (e.g. Algorithm 1 just before section 4, Figure 2 just before subsection 4.2, Table 1 just before subsection 6.2, Figure 6 just before subsection 6.3.2, and Figure 8 just before Conclusions);

• The authors must ensure that all figures have the minimum required resolution meaning a minimum of 1000 pixels width/height, or 300 dpi or higher as the Journal’s instructions at the link above specify); They need to additionally check if such issues are not caused also by the exporting settings into the .pdf format, the latter being the only one available for download by all reviewers when using the MDPI platform;

• The authors must ensure that all references to equations/formulas must be explicitly and precisely formulated in the main text (not using “as follows” - line 373 but using “shown in eq.11” - line 365);

• I think the references (in the main text) to some figures must be in close proximity to them (e.g. ref. to Figure 2 - line 232 is on page no.6 and the figure itself is on the next page, although there is room for including it in the previous page using minimum text paragraph interchanges). The same for Figures 7 and 8;

• All digital object identifier (DOI) codes for all references must be explicitly specified as suggested in the journal’s instruction set (link above);

• There are so many figures (8) and just one (1) table in the paper. Figure 3 must be converted into a table. A part of the remaining figures (7), some of them not essential for understanding the main ideas should be moved to the Appendix section. If not existing, this Appendix section must be created.

 

 

For the second class of issues (content-related ones), I mention below the following:

• I think more contributions in journal papers must be cited in this research both in the Introduction, Related Work (which must be coupled with the Intro), and especially in the section dedicated to the interpretation of the results. I think that just 38 references (from which 6 as Proceeding Papers, one Congress paper, one Symposium paper, and 3 Workshop papers) are not enough). More journal papers are needed in this paper’s list of references;

• Moreover, the authors must include additional references to scientific papers when reporting values such as hit rates, routing hops, etc. (last figures) in order to have a minimum framework supporting comparisons and conclusions;

• I think at least two additional references to scientific papers (preferably ISI-indexed journals with non-null IF & AIS) discussing the Zipf distributions parameters must be included in the manuscript (I was able to identify only reference 7 - lines 480 and 481). The same rule of three (sources - minimum) must be ensured for all other cases in this manuscript when citing previous work;

• Some acronyms are not explained at their first occurrence (e.g., PIT, CPT, CRT, CS, etc.). A list of abbreviations must be included in this manuscript in which all acronyms used must be present;

• Algorithm 1 must be precisely identified in the authors’ own GitHub repository (replication of results reasons). If not existing, the authors must create one for the entire project corresponding to this manuscript;

• A precise reference to Algorithm 1 is missing from the main text of the manuscript;

• Reference no.23 return error no 404 (page not found). The authors are required to solve this issue;

• In Table 1, lines 4-6 (for the last column), the authors must precisely specify why the values are missing; If not the case, at least N/A or Not Available;

• The second paragraph of Conclusions (Further investigation and experimentation…) must be moved to a dedicated section of the article, namely Limitations and Further Research, just before Conclusions. More details regarding the existing limitations are required here;

• The main contributions of the authors should be better highlighted in the Conclusions after moving the paragraph with further investigation to a dedicated section (as suggested above).

 

Thank you for the opportunity to read and check this paper!>>

 

Thank you very much for your contribution!

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

An NDN cache optimization strategy based on dynamic popularity and replacement value

 

 

Authors in this paper propose a cache optimization strategy based on dynamic popularity and replacement value, which is deployed in programmable devices by using programmable language. The experimental results illustrate that the strategy proposed in this paper can effectively improve the cache-hit rate and reduce the average routing hops for user request responses compared with other traditional NDN caching strategies

 

 

 

Comments/suggestions

-          The conclusions are not supported by the results – this is mandatory requirement for the authors

-          Editing for English language is required – mandatory

-          References No. 16 and 17 must be written according to the standards for web sources

-          The majority of references are old (2019 is only 1 reference, 3 are from 2018 and others are older), so the authors should add other references, especially in the related work session

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

You consistently improved the manuscript.

I think your paper is now closer to the state of being published.

Congratulations!