Microsoft Word – paper1.docx
The experiments on WSAN testbed were conducted in only 3 environments: clean,
noisy and stress testing. More environments with various condition of interference
should be used in the experiment to more convincingly show the difference between
graph routing and source routing.
The paper said regular flows should be delivered on a best-effort basis when an
emergency occurs. But it didn’t describe exactly how this best-effort is implemented.
It lacks theory analysis for the different methods of scheduling emergency packets
such as slot stealing and event-based emergency.
The experimentation and results in this paper are only for WirelessHART. It is
better to conduct experiments using other WSAN standards as well and show
whether the methods and algorithms are equally applicable to other standards.
There are other open issues I think worth considering. For example, whether the
network can automatically choose the best routing algorithm according to the
environments. Or whether there are better routing algorithm than the source
routing and graph routing in the WirelessHART standard.
It is impressive that the paper authors applied knowledge in other domains to the
problem of WSANs. For example, state-of-the-art response time analysis for
multiprocessor scheduling is used for the priority scheduling in WirelessHART net-
works. The authors made use of the Simulink from control system community and
TOSSIM from sensor network community to conduct simulations for wireless cyber-
physical simulation. Since problems involved in WSAN come from many different
domains, such kind of Interdisciplinary combination is very valuable.