Comparative Analysis of Traffic-Reduction Techniques for Seamless CAN-Based In-Vehicle Network Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, the authors proposed a traffic-effective architecture for seamless CAN-based networks (for in-vehicle networks), that integrates the HSR protocol with traffic reduction techniques.
In the Introduction section, the authors listed the main contributions of the paper. I recommend focusing (here) more on scientific contributions than “general” contributions because e.g. I don’t consider the first contribution as something special that needs to be highlighted. The authors could focus more on the proposed solution and explain what is new in this paper and what is taken from other papers.
In the Related work, there are various traffic reduction techniques categorized, listed and described. The most recent method was published in 2016. Are there no newer methods in this area?
The authors write that “… each HSR frame only contains one bit …”. Does it mean that the size of each frame is 1 bit? Maybe this encapsulation could be explained by a suitable picture.
The authors also say: “the seamless CAN-based network architecture can be implemented without the use of any new hardware on the present IVN system”. Can they provide more explanation about that?
In section 4, the authors could provide more details/parameters on the simulation setup. They could include tables for both architectures and implemented traffic reduction techniques containing achieved values in percentages. They could evaluate other parameters for simulated scenarios/architectures (e.g. how this level of traffic reduction reflects in network bandwidth/throughput, end-to-end delays, etc.). They could focus on particular rings in architecture and evaluate what level of traffic reduction was achieved in those particular rings.
I recommend renaming the section “4.3. Discussion” to e.g. Evaluation because the authors do not discuss their results and findings against the results of other authors (papers).
The English language of the paper is at a good level. I didn’t find any typos or grammatical errors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic is interesting and challenging, knowing that we have so many solutions and technologies at hand starting from DSRC, and V2X, but also many other systems developed by companies in the automotive field.
The article has a solid form and is very well put together, and in terms of observations, these are few and are aimed at finishing the manuscript.
The motivation for the choice of the field and the exposure of the main essence for which this solution was chosen to the detriment of the existing ones.
The more extensive exposition of the usefulness of this proposal is about those existing on the market.
The figures can be improved in places and detailed well enough to be much more straightforward.
The conclusions are somewhat superficial and need substantial improvement.
The technical and simulative part is clear and concise for the reader without raising questions. The elements used are not extremely new to the entire literature, but how they are integrated within the proposal confers the necessary degree of authenticity.
Will the proposal remain only at an emotional/simulative level?
The introductory section, as I said, lists some contributions, but they do not highlight the extremely important aspects in terms of novelty, nor do they underline the special characteristics that the other research groups have outlined.
The need to exemplify and demonstrate the novelty that I bring through this manuscript in comparison with other works is imperative.
To reduce congestion and traffic density, several dozen articles are published annually in extremely valuable journals, and the authors are limited to a few, and those that are over 7-8 years old, please analyze this aspect and correct it.
Can the graphic representation for each HSR frame be made in a much more explicit way? How was that bit obtained?
Can the connectivity at the vehicle level through the IVN system be achieved without other adjustments?What is the simplified installation procedure of this architecture?
Regarding the architecture or the hardware components, can you detail certain characteristics that you have about other studies?
What are the values achieved and how do you evaluate the system in different scenarios?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors provided responses to my comments and questions. They revised the paper based on some of my comments or explained what was not clear.
However, there was one set of (important) comments; the authors managed only the first part (sentence) and ignored the rest: It is related to the comments:
“In section 4, the authors could provide more details/parameters on the simulation setup. They could include tables for both architectures and implemented traffic reduction techniques containing achieved values in percentages. They could evaluate other parameters for simulated scenarios/architectures (e.g. how this level of traffic reduction reflects in network bandwidth/throughput, end-to-end delays, etc.). They could focus on particular rings in architecture and evaluate what level of traffic reduction was achieved in those particular rings.”
I would like that the authors handle these comments responsibly.
I would also recommend sorting (alphabetically) a list of abbreviations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
