Flexible Design of Low-Delay MEC-VLC Integrating Network Based on Attocell Overlap for IIoT

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript by J. Xue et,al. presents an theoretical study on integrated multi-access edge computing and visible light communication network with attocell overlap design. The authors are investigating an important and interesting topic. The paper is clear and well organized. The reviewer has few questions and suggestions:

How would the proposed system design handle the data uploading from the user to CTU?

In a practical VLC transmitter, the power is not evenly distributed inside the attocell. Rather, the energy distribution can be affected by many internal and environmental parameters, such as the LED capping and the scattering from the wall. How would the model address those challenges?

On page 12, the authors conclude that “the overlap-based scheme can improve the time delay distribution, but its enhancement on the average delay is not very obvious.” based on the simulation results. Why is that?

Author Response

Many thanks!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper proposes a cell overlap-based low-delay algorithm for MED-VLC integrating networks. The topic seems to be interesting. Detailed comments follow. 

First, the mathematical symbols are not clearly defined, which makes it hard to read the paper, e.g., i_0 and i, \gamma and r, \alpha, etc. 

Second, the authors aim to propose algorithms in the area of the VLC. However, none of the basic knowledge of the VLC is introduced or used in the paper, like the cause of the blockage can be caused by any obstacles in between the CTU and users. Please further clarify the blockage model used in the algorithm design. 

Third, the proposed algorithm is straightforward. The simulation results are hard to understand, like what the authors really want to convey. For example, in Fig. 5, why one user is dropped in the distance-based method is not clear.  For Fig. 6, \tau_{i,j} is for a specific single user and single CTU? 

Last but not the least, the organization and presentation should be further improved to make the paper more concise and clearer to the readers. Figures 7-10 should be reorganized to fit in the scope of the paper. 

Author Response

Many thanks!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

See attached PDF

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Many thanks!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

All my concerns have been well addressed. I recommend it be accepted for publication.