Dear Editor and Reviewers,
First of all, we would like to thank you very much for your kind help to improve
-our article named: `` Distributed Lifetime Coverage Optimization Protocol in Wireless Sensor Networks
-''. We highly appreciate the detailed valuable
+our article named: `` Distributed Lifetime Coverage Optimization Protocol in
+Wireless Sensor Networks ''. We highly appreciate the detailed valuable
comments of the reviewers on our article. The suggestions are quite helpful for
us and we incorporate them in the revised article. We are happy to submit to you
a revised version that considers most of your remarks and suggestions to improve
the comments and the revision for the original manuscript.
-
\section*{Response to Reviewer $\#$1 Comments}
-The paper present a new system to optimize sensord detections. The work present the algorithm in a cleare and well descrived way. The main problem is connected with the luck of examples and also on the practical applications. I suggest in future to make a more formal description of the process.\\
+The paper present a new system to optimize sensord detections. The work present
+the algorithm in a cleare and well descrived way. The main problem is connected
+with the luck of examples and also on the practical applications. I suggest in
+future to make a more formal description of the process.\\
-\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} Right. We have included a paragraph on the examples and practical applications of WSNs in section~1. }}
-\textcolor{red}{Je pense que la question porte sur un exemple d'application de notre protocole?}
+\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer:} Right. We have included a paragraph
+ on the examples and practical applications of WSNs in section~1. }}
+\textcolor{red}{Je pense que la question porte sur un exemple d'application de
+ notre protocole?}
+\textcolor{magenta}{Je pense que oui.}
\section*{Response to Reviewer $\#$3 Comments}
-This work proposed a distributed lifetime coverage optimization (DiLCO) protocol to apply to predefined subregions, which are generated from the area of interest using a classical divide-and-conquer method, to improve the lifetime of a wireless sensor network. Their proposed protocol is devised with a two-step process, including a leader election technique in each subregion and a sensor's activity scheduling by each elected leader. In general, it is a good idea to pre-divide the network domain into several sub-areas, and assign a single cluster head in each sub-area for achieving more balanced energy dissipation for the wireless sensor network. As we known, Heinzelman et al. (2000) first proposed a clustering protocol called LEACH for periodical data-gathering applications. Also many variants of LEACH protocol or a variety of distributed protocols had proposed enhanced energy efficient adaptive clustering protocols by pre-dividing the network domain into several
-sub-areas, and assigning a single cluster head in each sub-area to achieve more balanced energy dissipation. Hence, I suggest that the authors could clearly state the differences and benefits between their leader selection technique and the methods of cluster head election in LEACH or other distributed protocols. Moreover, they used the two protocols, DESK and GAF, for assessing the performance of their protocols is not convincible. The authors may include more well-known or recently developed protocols for comparison.
-
-\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer :}
+This work proposed a distributed lifetime coverage optimization (DiLCO) protocol
+to apply to predefined subregions, which are generated from the area of interest
+using a classical divide-and-conquer method, to improve the lifetime of a
+wireless sensor network. Their proposed protocol is devised with a two-step
+process, including a leader election technique in each subregion and a sensor's
+activity scheduling by each elected leader. In general, it is a good idea to
+pre-divide the network domain into several sub-areas, and assign a single
+cluster head in each sub-area for achieving more balanced energy dissipation for
+the wireless sensor network. As we known, Heinzelman et al. (2000) first
+proposed a clustering protocol called LEACH for periodical data-gathering
+applications. Also many variants of LEACH protocol or a variety of distributed
+protocols had proposed enhanced energy efficient adaptive clustering protocols
+by pre-dividing the network domain into several sub-areas, and assigning a
+single cluster head in each sub-area to achieve more balanced energy
+dissipation. Hence, I suggest that the authors could clearly state the
+differences and benefits between their leader selection technique and the
+methods of cluster head election in LEACH or other distributed
+protocols. Moreover, they used the two protocols, DESK and GAF, for assessing
+the performance of their protocols is not convincible. The authors may include
+more well-known or recently developed protocols for comparison.
+
+
+\textcolor{blue}{\textbf{\textsc{Answer :}
%The difference between our leader selection technique and the methods of cluster head election in LEACH or other distributed protocols in that our approach assumes that the sensors are deployed almost uniformly and with high density over the region. So we only need to fix a regular division of the region into subregions to make the problem tractable. The subdivision is made using divide-and-conquer concept such that the number of hops between any pairs of sensors inside a subregion is less than or equal to~3. The sensors inside each subregion cooperate to elect one leader. Leader applies sensor activity scheduling based optimization to provide the schedule to the sensor nodes in the subregion. The advantage of our approach is to minimize the energy consumption required for communication. The sensors only require to communicate with the other sensors inside the subregion to elect the leader instead of communicating with other nodes in the WSN. \\Whereas in LEACH and other cluster head election methods, the cluster heads are elected in distributed way where sensors elect themselves to be local cluster-heads at any given time with a certain probability. These cluster-head nodes broadcast their status to the other sensors in the network. Each sensor node determines to which cluster it wants to belong by choosing the cluster-head that requires the minimum communication energy. Once all the nodes are organized into clusters, each cluster-head creates a schedule for the nodes in its cluster. \\\\
-In our approach, the leader selection technique is quite different from the LEACH protocol or from its variants. Contrary to the LEACH protocol, the division of the area of interest into subregions is assumed to be performed before the head election. Moreover we assume that sensors are deployed almost uniformly and with high density over the area of interest, such that the division is fixed and regular. As in LEACH, our protocol works in round fashion. In each round, during the pre-sensing phase, nodes make autonomous decisions. In LEACH, each sensor elects itself to be a cluster head, and each non-cluster head will determine its cluster for the round. In our protocol, nodes in the same subregion select their leader. In both protocols, the amount of remaining energy in each node is taken into account to promote the nodes that have the most energy to become leader. Contrary to the LEACH protocol where all sensors will be active during the sensing-phase, our protocol allows to deactivate a subset of sensors through an optimization process which reduces significantly the energy consumption. \\\\
-As explained by the reviewer, there is a large variety of energy-efficient protocols for WSN. We focus on GAF and DESK protocols for two main points. First, our protocol is inspired from the two other ones. DiLCO uses a regular division of the area as in GAF protocol and a temporal division in rounds as in DESK algorithm. Secondly, GAF and DESK are well-known protocols, easy to implement, and often used as references for comparison. \textcolor{red}{je ne sais pas si on ne devrait pas inclure une ref à LEACH dans la biblio, mais je ne sais pas trop comment l'introduire dans le papier...}
- \\\\
-}}
+In our approach, the leader selection technique is quite different from the
+LEACH protocol or from its variants. Contrary to the LEACH protocol, the
+division of the area of interest into subregions is assumed to be performed
+before the head election. Moreover, we assume that sensors are deployed almost
+uniformly and with high density over the area of interest, such that the
+division is fixed and regular. As in LEACH, our protocol works in round fashion.
+In each round, during the pre-sensing phase, nodes make autonomous decisions. In
+LEACH, each sensor elects itself to be a cluster head, and each non-cluster head
+will determine its cluster for the round. In our protocol, nodes in the same
+subregion select their leader. In both protocols, the amount of remaining energy
+in each node is taken into account to promote the nodes that have the most
+energy to become leader. Contrary to the LEACH protocol where all sensors will
+be active during the sensing-phase, our protocol allows to deactivate a subset
+of sensors through an optimization process which reduces significantly the
+energy consumption. \\\\ As explained by the reviewer, there is a large variety
+of energy-efficient protocols for WSN. We focus on GAF and DESK protocols for
+two main reasons. First, our protocol is inspired by both of them. DiLCO uses a
+regular division of the area as in GAF protocol and a temporal division in
+rounds as in DESK. Second, GAF and DESK are well-known protocols, easy to
+implement, and often used as references for comparison. \textcolor{red}{je ne
+ sais pas si on ne devrait pas inclure une ref \`a LEACH dans la biblio, mais je
+ ne sais pas trop comment l'introduire dans le papier...}
+\textcolor{magenta}{Le premier paragraphe de ta r\'eponse me semble pas mal, juste pour situer
+notre protocole par rapport à LEACH. On pourrait le mettre dans la section~2 ?}\\\\ }}
%In fact, GAF algorithm is chosen for comparison as a competitor because it is famous and easy to implement, as well as many authors referred to it in many publications. DESK algorithm is also selected as competitor in the comparison because it works into rounds fashion (network lifetime divided into rounds) similar to our approaches, as well as DESK is a full distributed coverage approach. }}
-
-
+% Michel => TO BE CONTINUED
\noindent The following improvements may be suggested to make it even better:\\
\noindent {\bf 1. What is the "new idea" or contribution of this work?} \\
