Talk:WikiJournal of Science/A Survey on Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4)

Peer review 1
Thank you for reviewing the article we wrote, I will consider the notes you added. Please find my reply to the points you raised.

I hope you consider that this is not a leading paper in the domain. Instead, it is a survey on what had been already created regarding IPv4. Thus, there is no additional value, this was intentional from the beginning. From the same perspective, we think that we should not start showing the problem of the research, instead, we choose to start showing the historical predictive. Clearly, there is no problem addressed in this paper.

✅ I will add details on the packet switching part following your advice.

Regarding the use of the stack layer model, we did not use OSI model, instead, our work is based on TCP/IP model. Based on the scientific literature we reviewed (mainly & ), we believe that this is the better approach to address the protocol.

✅ Explain the idea behind using classful addressing and the size of the network

✅ Restructuring classless and classful addressing section.

✅ Introduction of the route aggregation in the CIDR section.

✅ Expand ARP & NAT Sections to include more details + Interducing the DNS address->name and name->address operations.

Regarding routing, we do believe that addressing routing with IP is confusing and not proper. Although it is heavily relying on the addressing mechanism. Routing is not part IPv4. Not including it in the paper is completely a conscience decision. and we still believe that including it will be confusing, and prefer not to address it in this paper. ✅ We were able to shortly address routing process in the application section. We did insist that it is not a part of IPv4.

✅ Add an application section at the end of the paper.

✅ follow and  recommendations.

✅ Include "I.D.-draft-schoen-intarea-ietf-maintaining-ipv4" in the document, I.D.-draft-schoen-intarea-ietf-maintaining-ipv4.

Thank you again for taking time to review the paper and to add these accurate notes to enhance it.--Michel Bakni (discuss • contribs) 19:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Peer review 2
{{review|reviewer=Igor Dias da Silva|affiliation=Inria|Q=Q114403387|link=https://team.inria.fr/coati/team-members/|date=30 September 2022|text=Recommendation: accept

Discussion
The paper is well written and well structured. I did not find any mistakes and the work covers all the major points of IPV4. I only have two minor suggestions:

1. In section 5.2 the authors briefly mention the IPV4 functionalities. It should be mentioned that these functionalities will be better detailed in section 7 otherwise the readers will be caught off guard by the lack of information in this subsection.

2. The authors should mention the problem of having mobility in the network that mainly arises from how the internet was structured considering fixed hosts. I understand that the solutions for this problem are not in the scope of this work. However, part of the problem of handling mobility comes from IP addressing. Mentioning it in section 8 would be interesting.}}

Thank you lot for taking the time to review our paper, I will consider the two points you have raised:

✅ Create a clear link between the functionalities section and section 5.2.

✅ Include mobile IP in the paper.

--Michel Bakni (discuss • contribs) 19:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Timeline
Dear ,

I need, at least, until mid-November to integrate the updates in a proper way.. This time is needed so I can do my research.

I will keep you updated.--Michel Bakni (discuss • contribs) 19:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Dear, all notes were included, we finished revising the article.--Michel Bakni (discuss • contribs) 18:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)