Energy-Efficient and Secure Load Balancing Technique for SDN-Enabled Fog Computing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Honestly, the authors have addressed my concerns of last round of review, and the current version is much better than the older one. The authors has the following minor comments:
1. Energy-efficient (EE) and SDN are two key words in this paper, thus, it is suggested to introduce some recent works in EE transmission field [R1] and SDN field [R2] to highlight the state-of-the-art of this paper, which would make the introduction of background more comprehensive.
[R1] “SLNR-based secure energy efficient beamforming in multibeam satellite systems,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, early access, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TAES.2022.3190238.
[R2] “Joint beamforming and power allocation for satellite-terrestrial integrated networks with non-orthogonal multiple access,” IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 657-670, June 2019.
2. The volume, number and page information of Ref.[15] should be updated.
Author Response
Worthy reviewer, Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Recommended
The authors have substantially revised the paper as per my comments.
Author Response
Worthy Reviewer, Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The manuscript presnts the solution proposal of secured load balancing mechanism for cloud computing. The topic is intresting and important. The manuscrit is quite well written and organized.
I propose to present the architecture of the proposal more clear and in more formal way.
Author Response
Worthy Reviewer, Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Note that this is not a statement about the usage of English, but rather a statement about the technical content of the paper. The topic the authors try to address is very densely covered in the recent literature; the authors should conduct a thorough survey by looking at recent meetings such as ACM Flexnets'21, and papers in the journal Sensors (2021). The authors introduce notation, confuse $n$ with $s$ in the first formula, they talk about "size" of a task and then talk about execution time of the task but never link the two, their formulas and quantities are poorly defined, etc. It is also not at all clear what they are simulating.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The contribution and motivation of this article are limited. This paper presents some problems in SDN and proposes solutions to these problems, but lacks other related work for comparison. Although the authors make several contribution points, the current reasoning is limited and not convincing. What are the advantages and contribution points of this paper compared to traditional solutions?
The novelty of this paper is insufficient, and some of the modeling and solution methods in the paper need to be constructed in-depth considering more factors. For example the recent papers to be discussed in section 2: A hybrid heuristics artificial intelligence feature selection for intrusion detection classifiers in cloud of things; CL-MLSP: The design of a detection mechanism for sinkhole attacks in smart cities
The description of the experimental results is not clear enough. Please add a detailed reason for the results.
The writing quality is a bit lower than acceptable. The English should be thoroughly revised all over the manuscript.
The settings of the experiments could be explained clearly. The experiments themselves can be strengthened.
All algorithm and their parameters should be elaborated with details. Please compare with more state-of-art methodologies in the revision. Please discuss the experimental findings in details and compare with previous researches.
Most of the figures need to be polished. In Fig. 9&10, there are too many elements and the text in the figure is too small, resulting in poor readability. And the corresponding descriptions of these figures are also sketchy and not detailed enough. The same is true for other figures as well, such as Fig. 5-8.
Please clearly state the limitations of the proposed scheme and challenges of implementation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
1) The authors indicate that they use the COSCO simulation framework, yet the COSCO approach is actually a specific ML driven load balancing algorithm across a system, that is evaluated via simulation. Thus the authors seem to have confined themselves within previously existing results.
2) The technical confusion continuous in the various formulas, e.g. (5) where C(T)dt appears inside the integral .. what is varying, what is constant? The paper is riddled with such inconsistencies which makes it technically impossible to see what the authors have actually done.
3) Recent (2020 and 2021) work in leading journals such as the Proceedings of the IEEE and Sensors regarding SDN based system energy/performance optimizations are not referenced.
Reviewer 3 Report
Recommended
