A Network Scheduling Method Based on Segmented Constraints for Convergence of Time-Sensitive Networking and Industrial Wireless Networks†
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper A Network Scheduling Method for Convergence of Time-Sensitive Networking and Industrial Wireless Network deals with convergence time and transmission delay optimization in converged industrial networks. These converged networks can be composed of various types of networks, in this paper, the combination of a wireless and time sensitive industrial network is analyzed. The paper contains an analysis of converged network architecture and a data flow priority conversion mechanism between both networks together with the scheduling methods.
First, the language throughout the entire paper needs some major corrections. The English language level needs improvements and careful proof reading is necessary.
Next, the overall presentation in Sections II and III is confusing and the proposed method is unclear. First, the description of adapted model and its application in Sections 3.1.2 and entire chapter 3.2 is unclear and hard to follow and understand. Some symbols and operations are not described (e.g. “lcm()”), Tables 5 and 6 are hard to understand.
The results and the demonstration of outputs in Section IV is poor. First, Fig. 9 could be reduced as it is not necessary to demonstrate all the sniffed packages in the network. Next, in Section 4.2 no flows information is provided (parameters of flows).
In my opinion, more extensive measurement and experimentation with different flow parameters and multiple parallel streams is necessary to demonstrate the proposed method.
There is no comparison with any existing similar method and technique.
The language throughout the entire paper needs some major corrections. The English language level needs improvements and careful proof reading is necessary.
Author Response
Sincerely thank you for your comments. Next will be the responses to these comments one by one.
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic of the paper is a scheduling algorithm to merge wired and wireless TSN (time sensitive networks) in an industrial environment. The author gives two algorithms for assigning priorities and scheduling the transmissions, and demonstrates that5 this leads to reduced delay and jitter.
The problem is relevant and interesting, and the paper is mostly well organized, but the writing is somewhat confusing. There are other concerns in the manuscript:
1) The data flow scheduling seems to be a greedy algorithm that searches resource blocks (channel and time slot) for using the links. It is not a complicated algorithm, but its description in Section 3.1.1 is unnecessarily obscure and difficulty to solve. Please, simplify this.
2) It is said in the paper that algorithm for data flow scheduling (Section 3.2.2) is optimal. Optimal respect to what? The objective metric is not specified. How is the algorithm optimal? If there is proof or argument for optimality, please include it in the paper.
3) The scheduling algorithm is likewise difficult to follow, though the individual steps are simple individually. If possible, explain with more clarity how the scheduling algorithm works and, in particular, what it intends to optimize. Otherwise, understanding of the formulas (1)-(7) is hard to follow.
4) Table 1 lists a mapping between priorities for different delay requirements. Is this a proposal by the author or is it part of a technical standard? It is not clear in the manuscript. If it is a proposal, is the list heuristic? Please, specify how it has been created.t
The English usage needs some corrections and revision. For instance, at several places the author uses 'is consisted of'. There are other minor errors and typos in the text.
Author Response
Sincerely thank you for your comments. Next will be the responses to these comments one by one.
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All major revisions, corrections and queries were successfully addressed in my opinion. However, more extensive research with multiple data streams and various transmission parameters is necessary to perform next in order to validate the proposed method.
Language corrections are ok.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have rewritten many parts in the manuscript, and have properly addressed some of my previous concerns regarding the priority mapping, for instance. Other aspects remain unanswered or unchanged, like the greedy nature of the algorithms and the fact that, ultimately, this is a straightforward priority queueing algorithm, with very verbose presentation.
Given the technical correctness of the work, I think that the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
There are no grammar or syntax errors in the English language used in the paper.
