Design of a Digital Baseband Processor for UHF Tags

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper simply appears to describe the protocol standard of  Chinese military standard protocol GJB7377. However, the authors claim that the paper is on low power, low voltage design of the digital baseband. The paper provides very little to support that claim. It simply seems to state "a design have been made" and here are some "RTS output". In order to publish this paper that will contribute to the knowledge of the community, the authors should consider providing better description of the following

• Actual design and architecture
• Aspects of the design/architecture that makes it low power and low voltage
• Comparison with existing or other published design
• protocol compliance testing: how is it being tested. Each such protocol usually requires extensive compliance testing. 

Monir comments to improve the paper

• Acronyms never defined (DSB-ASK, PSK and too many to mention here): Each acronym needs definition]
• page 3 seems to indicate only ASK was used in the design whereas protocol has both AS and PSK. Why ASK only in design. Is this an incomplete design?
• Memory controller is there any specifics in the design of the controller or is it standard. The reason for clarifying this is specifically mentioned in the paper. Is the memory SRAM some low power SRAM?
• page 5. Many definitions like Tcal1,2 Tc, Ts not properly defined
• page 5. figures appear to simply been copied from documents possibly the standard document itself. This is usually not acceptable for publication.
• CRC description: why such a description which is easily found even in wikipedia. What is novel in the design for the CRC
• Miller code not described not given any reference to.
• page 7. It is not clear what is actually tested and how. It simply shows some signals in RTL. How does these signal show protocol compliance. Is the purpose to show the message has been created, the timing has been met or what?
• There has to be some sort protocol compliance test and results done and needed to qualify the digital baseband to meet the standard implemented. The paper does not clearly show whether that has been done.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Good work., However, your English proficiency level is low, also grammar need sto be improved. The correct use of articles ("the", "a", "an") and singulars/plurals has to be provided. Only a few illustrative examples:

1) Abstract, 1st line: "... for UHF tags."

2) Abstractz, 10th line, "...using a TMSC ..."

3) Introduction, 11th line: "This paper is focussed on the research ..."

4) Abstract, 5th line: "..., kill tag etc."

Typo: Abstract 8th line: It must read as "ModelSim".

References are not in a uniform style, e.g., see the use of the sign "

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please clearly indicate the novelty of the paper. What is the added value of this paper to the field under study?

Quality of Figure 4, 5 and 7 is too low.

Figure 8 and 9 are unreadable.

The Figures should be discussed in detail. This will increase the usefulness of the paper to the readers.

From this paper we know that the design was successful, but what is the key to this success? How can the reader benefit from the data and conclusions contained in the paper?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Please clearly indicate the novelty of the paper. What is the added value of this paper to the field under study?

Response : Articles like this one introduce the structure of digital processors in a general way and do not explain the whole process of digital processor work in detail. This paper provides a detailed division of the structure of the digital processor and introduces the operation process of the digital
processor, so that people can understand the structure and workflow of the digital processor more clearly.

- This is not novelty of the paper!

Figure 8 and 9 are unreadable.
Response : The images should be able to be enlarged, so I don't understand why you say the images are unreadable.

- The reader will not be able to enlarge anything in the pdf file.

 

The Figures should be discussed in detail. This will increase the usefulness of the paper to the readers.
Response : The discussion has been made here in pictures and I don't know how to discuss it in more detail. I am Sorry.

- Detail description of the problem is essential in the scientific paper. 

 

From this paper we know that the design was successful, but what is the key to this success? How can the reader benefit from the data and conclusions contained in the paper?
Response : The reader can understand the structure of the digital processor more clearly from this paper and clearly understand how the digital processor processes the data and how to complete the
communication between the tag and the reader.

- What is the key to this success? How can the reader benefit from the data and conclusions contained in the paper?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

It seems that the Authors are not able to improve the paper to became more useful for the readers that it already is.