\textcolor{red}{\textbf{\textsc{Reviewer's response:} I see at the end of page 8 the description of the INFO packet. However, you are not including any description of the position coordinates, remaining energy, sensor node ID, etc. in the write up. I suggest adding this into the write up to make the communication clear.}}\\
-\textcolor{green}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} Right, we have included more description about the INFO packet and the ActiveSleep packet into the write up at the end of page 8}}\\
+\textcolor{green}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} Right, we have included more description about the INFO packet and the ActiveSleep packet into the write up at the end of section~3.}}\\
\noindent {\bf 7.} The methodology is implemented in OMNeT++ (network simulator)
and tested against 2 existing algorithms and a previously developed method by
PeCO is better? Maybe include computation time or something that is as convincing as the energy
consumed per sensor.}}
-\textcolor{green}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} In fact, we included a new performance metric that linked to the energy, called Energy Saving Ratio (ESR). We added new section in the result part related to this performance metric that shows our PeCO protocol provides better energy saving compared with other approaches.}}\\
+\textcolor{green}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} In fact, we defined in section 5.1 a new performance metric linked to the energy, called Energy Saving Ratio (ESR). We added a new section (5.2.3) in the result part related to this performance metric which shows that our PeCO protocol provides better energy saving compared with other approaches.}}\\
