All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The article is acceptable because all requirements are met
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Yilun Shang, a 'PeerJ Computer Science' Section Editor covering this Section #]
I have received a set of comments from the reviewers and it looks like there are still remaining issues to be address. Please address those issues and submit a revision of the manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: The review process has identified that the English language must be improved. PeerJ can provide language editing services if you wish - please contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). Your revision deadline is always extended while you undergo language editing. #]
#General issues:
Correct the statement: …….Kosek-Szott and Domino (2022),Daldoul et al. (2020).
The authors have addressed other issues in the revised manuscript.
#Grammatical/Syntactical errors:
- Blank space is missing between the sentences "……contention-driven scenarios.We conduct a comparative…..”.
- “In this study, we assume for simplicity that bandwidth B can only ……...". Here the parameters are assumed by Naik et al. (2018), not you!
- “The function f (B,N), where N represents the number of STAs, determines the distribution of total bandwidth B among several STAs”.
The authors have addressed other issues in the revised manuscript.
- “Therefore, we demonstrate that two schedulers might achieve different throughput and delay performances.”. Which two schedulers, DL and UL? Please mention this in the 'Introduction' section.
The authors have addressed other issues in the revised manuscript.
- Please write the statement “Simulation time complexity is reduced by ……..” as “Simulation time is reduced by ………”
The authors have addressed other issues in the revised manuscript.
This is my second review of the manuscript. The authors are advised to revise the manuscript thoroughly once again. Please address the new remarks in the updated manuscript. Please also improve your English.
no comment
no comment
no comment
Based on my evaluation upon receiving reviewers' comments, I would provide an opportunity for the authors to revise the paper. Please carefully review the comments and provide appropriate responses and/or actions.
#General issues:
- Mixing of present, past, and future tenses is not appropriate for scientific articles. You may use only the present tense throughout the manuscript.
- The BSS coloring procedure requires a description with suitable figures.
- Figure 2 is not described in the manuscript.
- Why does Table 3 contain the pseudocodes? It should not be a table. The algorithms/pseudocodes should be numbered separately.
- “……...the study by considering adaptive resource allocation techniques or vice versa, which…….”.
- Many sources are not cited in Section 4.
- The style of citations of the references inside the text is not correct.
#Grammatical/Syntactical errors:
Many grammatical/syntactical errors are found throughout the manuscript. For example,
- The sections and sub-sections are numbered with ordinary English numbers. However, the authors use Roman letters most of the time to cite those which is awkward.
- “Consequently, new insights into its benefits and limitations under various network……...”
- “We conduct a comparative analysis between the simulations and models………”
- “Reference Brahmi et al. (2020) focused on the OFDMA technology, introduced in the new IEEE 802.11ax……..”.
- “It introduced a resource allocation algorithm (CRA) to achieve……….”.
- “The AP collects multiple CSI values from the uplink OFDMA frame, using this information to determine………”.
- Why are so many sub-sections in Section 2? Are those paper titles?
- “In situations where older Carrier-sense multiple access with collision avoidance (CSMA/CA) access protocols……….”.
- “In this study, we assumed for simplicity that bandwidth B could only……...”. Here the parameters are assumed by Naik et al. (2018), not by you!
- Why double parentheses are used for the word ‘MU-UL’ in the abstract?
- “Therefore, we demonstrate that two schedulers might achieve different throughput and delay performances.”. Which two schedulers, DL and UL?
- In Section 7.4, the authors mention “Equations were formulated to simulate the system’s behavior accurately”. However, no equations are found throughout the manuscript!
- The X-axis of Figure 3 shows only the throughput. So, what do you mean by throughput with efficiency in the title of the figure?
- The description of many symbols in Figure 5 gives wrong information.
- The title of most of the figures for simulation results is not carefully chosen.
- The authors claimed that they proposed an analytical model for simulation. However, no analytical model is observed in the manuscript.
- They also claimed that the proposed analytical model is based on Bianchi's model. By the way, Bianchi's model (2000) is formed for the random access model (legacy Wi-Fi) which is not for OFDMA-based Wi-Fi.
- “Wi-Fi standard update IEEE 802.11ax from WiFi Alliance aims to enhance……….”. It should be written correctly like “WiFi Alliance updates IEEE 802.11ax standard to enhance……….”.
- “…….. and the technology is still in its infancy, making the creation of commercially feasible testbeds impractical.” The statement about Wi-Fi 6 is wrong. Because Wi-Fi 6 was released in 2019 and now commercial products are available all over the world.
- “In this study, we validate the implementation of 802.11ax OFDMA in the ns-3 simulator using simulation results derived from an analytical model in contention-driven scenarios.” The statement does not make sense.
- “Simulation complexity is reduced by introducing parallel computing in the system.” What complexity have you mentioned in the abstract? Is that simulation time? Please mention precisely.
This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the latest Wi-Fi standard based on OFDMA. After thoroughly reviewing the state of the art and the role of OFDMA within the Wi-Fi framework, the authors present an implementation using the NS-3 simulator. They analytically derive key performance indicators (KPIs) based on the well-known Bianchi model and compare these results to their simulation implementation. Compared to other versions of Wi-Fi, the scheduler is not defined by the standard, and the authors propose two different allocation strategies.
OK
Section 1: The list of state-of-the-art references is complete, but the presentation is unconventional. Please reformat it into a coherent text for a more reader-friendly experience.
Figure 1: Please add a note explaining that the number in the box refers to the number of carriers (if I'm correct).
I don’t fully understand Figure 7. In the text, you mention two scheduling strategies, but the legend in the figure doesn’t match—the curves are orange and green, not orange and blue. Is something missing?
The paper is well written, but the mathematical details of the theoretical derivations could be further emphasized and described in more detail, perhaps in an annex.
Paper title: Performance and Simulation Analysis of 802.11ax OFDMA in Contention-Driven Scenarios
In this study, authors validate the implementation of OFDMA in ns-3's Wi-Fi module, enhancing flexibility and support for future updates through a redesign process. Previous studies have validated the OFDMA implementation in the ns-3 Wi-Fi module by matching the simulation to the predictions of analytical models. In this work, authors show that OFDMA performance aligns with analytical predictions through simulation-based performance evaluations using the ns-3 in some contention-driven use cases.
My suggestion is a minor revision.
- Equations should be put in center and numbering. It is easy to read.
- Check outline of presentation. Example: Missing dot at the end of sentence in Line 211, etc.
Comment for the implementation results
- The contributions in this manuscript are not clear. Authors may create a comparison table to highlight your approach with another approaches.
- Results should be compared with another approach (Figure 5-9)
I did not see clearly the comparison of this approach with another papers
Authors should update it
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.