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.
Having addressed all the comments and incorporated the suggestions of the reviewers, your manuscript is now ready for publication. Congratulations!
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Yilun Shang, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
I do not have further comments. Thank you.
I do not have further comments. Thank you.
I do not have further comments. Thank you.
I do not have further comments. Thank you.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
-
- Keywords are not relevant. Please use appropriate keywords.
- Packet lookup and name lookup are still not distinguished from each other. Name lookup refers to the process of resolving or matching the name of a requested data object against the names stored in a router's data structures, such as the Content Store (CS), Pending Interest Table (PIT), or Forwarding Information Base (FIB). Packet lookup refers to the process of inspecting and processing NDN packets (Interest or Data packets) to extract relevant information, such as the name, signature, or other metadata, to make forwarding or caching decisions. In NDN, name lookup is about matching the name in a packet to make routing decisions, while packet lookup involves processing the entire packet (Interest or Data) to extract and verify information for forwarding, caching, or security purposes. Name lookup is a subset of the broader packet lookup process, focusing specifically on the name-based routing aspect. It seems that the survey covers the name lookup. However, packet lookup research is not covered at all. Please update the manuscript accordingly.
-
Figure 1 is mentioned twice in the caption for Figure 1.
The sentence explaining Figure 3 (line 130) should not be separated from the previous paragraph.
The writing style on the subtopic and title under the subtopic, with their explanations, is not consistent. Ex: lines 580 and 673.
The literature study is comprehensive.
-
Avoid using ":" in the paper. Make a proper sentence structure.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** Please ensure that all review, editorial, and staff comments are addressed in a response letter and that any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate.
**PeerJ Staff Note:** It is PeerJ policy that additional references suggested during the peer-review process should only be included if the authors agree that they are relevant and useful.
**Language Note:** When you prepare your next revision, please either (i) have a colleague who is proficient in English and familiar with the subject matter review your manuscript, or (ii) contact a professional editing service to review your manuscript. PeerJ can provide language editing services - you can contact us at [email protected] for pricing (be sure to provide your manuscript number and title). – PeerJ Staff
-
Although this work provides a comprehensive study of "naming," a topic not previously explored in detail within NDN, there remain some fundamental areas that should be further improved. With these enhancements, the paper would certainly be worthy of publication.
- The novelty of the “comprehensive survey” is not clear.
- The novelty of the name lookup “comprehensive survey” can be questioned because Majed et al. (2019) comprehensively reviewed “name lookup”. You’d better provide your novel clearly or get rid of the “packet lookup” review section all. Please also distinguish between “packet lookup” and “name lookup”.
- There are fundamental issues that need to be solved. Such as:
o The phrase "Packets of NDN are recognized through a globally private name" is not quite accurate. In Named Data Networking (NDN), packets are identified by names, which are globally unique and hierarchical, rather than "globally private."
o “Despite the significant advancements in NDN, numerous challenges remain unresolved, particularly in naming, packet lookup efficiency, scalability, security, and real-world deployment.” NDN has advanced to the point of having functional testbeds, indicating that many challenges—such as naming, packet lookup efficiency, scalability, security, and deployment—have practical solutions. While these issues are not entirely perfect, they are largely addressed and are continually improving. While these challenges are not ideal or fully “solved” in every aspect, they have been addressed well enough to support real-world experimentation and deployment.
o Flat names and self-certifying names are related concepts, but not exactly the same.
- In abstract, “…with a focus on addressing critical challenges such as scalability, memory efficiency, and lookup latency.”, please be accurate and provide all critical challenges that you identified within the manuscript. Please be more specific and provide your contributions and novelty clearly in the abstract.
o … (please read the whole manuscript very carefully for not to have such fundamental misconceptions).
- At each section, before getting into the listing of approaches with different techniques, please provide an introductory paragraph.
- Such as “Hybrid Naming” and “Hybrid Naming Approaches” are different things. Please update the titles accordingly.
- Please distinguish between approaches and techniques. Please be consistent within the manuscript.
- Please justify why you split the studies into “wired” and “wireless”. How approaches differ, etc…
- Please separate Background and Related Work.
- “Recent Advances in NDN” is not necessary in the survey because the focus is on “naming” and “lookup”. You may include such a section at the end with a better title if you present how “naming” and “lookup” are impressed/affected by those advances.
- In Figure 3, instead of “Interface”, please use “Face”.
- Instead of “Wired and Wireless NDN Mechanisms” section name, please use “NDN Mechanisms'
- Instead of checking (V) or unchecking (X) issues/metrics covered in studies (such as Table 10), please provide the evaluation environment and results.
- Table 3 needs to cover naming only. Pull, push, and mobility are not naming approaches. If it covers pull, push, and mobility, they need to be related to naming and presented.
- You may consider including “A Study On Naming and Caching in Named Data Networking” (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9640947)
- You may check “naming in distributed systems” to further explore different approaches and classifications that can be considered other than hierarchical, flat, attribute-based, and hybrid, which are very well known and reviewed in previous surveys. What is your novelty in classification?
- Why Figure 7 and not others?
- Why Figure 9 and not others?
-
- Is the review of broad and cross-disciplinary interest and within the scope of the journal?
This review is within the scope of the journal.
- Has the field been reviewed recently? If so, is there a good reason for this review (different point of view, accessible to a different audience, etc.)?
This field is an enhancement of the current review on the NDN field. Very good topic to be reviewed, and the contribution is clear.
- Does the Introduction adequately introduce the subject and make it clear who the audience is/what the motivation is?
The introduction adequately presents the subject matter but lacks a clear explanation of the motivation for this review paper.
The overall flow of the review is poor. For instance, in the research background section, the numbered points are presented without any accompanying explanation or context, which disrupts the coherence and makes it difficult to follow.
Figure 1: It is unclear which elements correspond to NDN and which to TCP/IP. Please clarify the figure by explicitly identifying or labeling the components related to each.
Most of the figures are unclear. Please ensure that all figures are of high resolution and free from visual artifacts such as broken or pixelated elements.
The description of the survey methodology is very brief, and the review does not present any research questions. Including clearly defined research questions would help guide the review and strengthen its analytical framework.
Most of the references are more than 5 years old.
-
In Figure 1, it is unclear which part of the Hourglass architecture corresponds to NDN and which to TCP/IP.
Figure 2 is not clear.
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.