An Internet of Things Access Control Scheme Based on Permissioned Blockchain and Edge Computing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper proposes an access control scheme based on blockchain. Some questions may be answered for a better understanding of the paper.

In the introduction, the contribution of the paper is not clear. Although the authors mention three possible contributions, the difference from previous work is not clear. Some possible differences are only discussed in the related work section. The KRaft consensus algorithm is not a contribution of the paper, as stated in the introduction.

The proposal seems to be correct but is unclear how the authors performed the experiments. What platform was used for the experiments? Common platforms are Ethereum, Hyperledger, and others. The authors cite that the experiments use simulation but do not give more information. In order to reproduce the experiments, the complete details of the methodology must be described, including the parameters of the experiments, scenarios, etc.

What is the confidence interval of the simulations? Statistical information is missing. 

Did the authors implement the Kraft algorithm?  Did the authors implement the other access control schemes (figure 9)?

What is the cloud system shown in the performance analysis section?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The paper is not written well.
2. Use the same method for defining a notation, like the Internet of Things(IoT) and ABAC(Attribute Based Access Control).
3. Check all the captions of the Tables and figures. 
4.  Defines the term IoT once in the introduction, and the same applies to all the terms.
5. The author must revise the introduction because most sentences are hard to understand. 
6. The user registration and authentication phase must be separate, and authors must add the flow chart of the user registration and authentication phase.
7. The heading style must be the same throughout the paper. Check all the heading styles (levels 1, 2, and 3).
8. Figure 2 needs to be explained in an elaborative way.
9. Novelty and contribution sections must be added in the revised manuscript. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors answered some questions from the reviewers. However, two points remain unclear to me. 1) As stated in the introduction, the KRaft consensus algorithm is not a contribution of the paper. 2) What is the confidence interval of the simulations? Statistical information is missing.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have revised the paper significantly. 

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors addressed all my comments.