A Survey on SDN and SDCN Traffic Measurement: Existing Approaches and Research Challenges

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Article is not organised well.

Literature survey is not adequate. Eventhough it has 150 papers, literature cited in the paper are out of date. Many new papers on SDN's are not included.

Problem statement is not concise. Novelty is very low.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your time and effort putting into the review. Your expertise and thoughtful comments inspire our further research in this topic. As such, we have carefully refined the manuscript to address the reviewers’ concerns, with the goal to share our scientific findings with the research community. We also play more attention on the English writing. We have uploaded the revised manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have the following comments:

1. In line 72-73, the authors indicate that the survey has been carried out until 2018. I thought this means that the literature used in the survey is from 2018 till 2022. This is not the case as there are many citation of articles as back as 1998 [104], 2005[96], etc. The authors should clarify this statement.

2. Newer citations should be included as this is a survey paper, the latest citation so far is from 2021[4] and 2020 [39, 131, 147]. 

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your time and effort putting into the review. Your expertise and thoughtful comments inspire our further research in this topic. As such, we have carefully refined the manuscript to address the reviewers’ concerns, with the goal to share our scientific findings with the research community. We also play more attention on the English writing. We have uploaded the revised manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Line 2 in abstract should phrase like Openflow is the only protocol that can be utilized.

Introduction section cannot start with 'To solve the above problem'... Instead the problem should be described first.

Line 39 onwards in introduction section is talking about traditional networking but the conclusion in line 41 - 43 is on SDN which is out of context. The transition from paragraph 2 to paragraph 3 of introduction section is not very strong. More basic discussions on existing traffic measurement solutions to SDN and SDNC needed. Please clearly describe the problems with current traffic measurement solutions.

The main contributions stated are not consistent with the abstract since security issues are not mentioned at all. Maybe the abstract should be rephrased to provide more emphasis on traffic measurement importance to SDN and SDNC QoS rather than security issues.

Basics of Traffic Measurements techniques and the importance to SDN and SDNC performance should be presented more clearly using diagrams and other methods. More technical details should be provided for each techniques, in addition to only drawbacks. Currently, discussions are quite general.

Please also provide some information about the performance of existing traffic measurement machine learning techniques rather than just description of the solution.

There are some English language errors spotted. For example, in line 1093 (to arrangement high-bandwidth?).

Reference list has no title.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your time and effort putting into the review. Your expertise and thoughtful comments inspire our further research in this topic. As such, we have carefully refined the manuscript to address the reviewers’ concerns, with the goal to share our scientific findings with the research community. We also play more attention on the English writing. We have uploaded the revised manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

review of SDN LTE Architecture vs SDCN Architecture ... . shall be enhanced with results.

Results of Machine learning process in Network Measurement shall be added

Comparision Table/graph shall be added.

Eventhough, it is a survey,  Results are needed fro methods.

Novelty of the paper is still a question mark?>

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have not addressed the previous comments adequately. For example, the paper still mention that Openflow is the only protocol that can be utilized for communication between control plane and data plane.

There are some other protocols for southbound interface such as ForCES, POF, etc.

Still English error can be spotted such as line 2 in abstract.

Referring to the authors response file, some comments are just responded with "????". 

Please be more serious and positive in addressing the comments.

Author Response

We value your thorough and thoughtful assessment, which inspires us to dig deeper into this topic. Hence, we carefully edited the text to address the reviewers' concerns so that we could present our findings to the scientific community for further scrutiny. In addition, we've emphasized the importance of writing in English more than ever before. The most notable edits to the current 
version are highlighted in RED. There are now more references listed in this publication.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

No comments