1

A Survey On Spectrum Access Technologies and Persisting Challenges
Author 1, Author 2, Author 3
January 2014
IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials
We thank the editor and reviewers for their times, insightful, and helpful feedback on our survey.
We have carefully considered their feedback and modified the survey to take into account their
suggestions and comments. For their convenience, we have retyped the comments in italics followed
by our response in bold.

Reviewer #1
1) For vehicular networks, many applications have stringent delay constraints. The WSMP module in
the WAVE protocol stack could be discussed with more details and examples.
Thank you for pointing out this suggestion. The WSMP module was discussed in more details.
The reviewer is kindly invited to go over the amended relevant section and give us his feedback if
further elaboration is needed.
2) The classification of wireless networks in Fig. 1 and in Introduction could be better clarified, where
ad hoc networks is put in the Legacy Wireless Networks category. Is not vehicular networks a special case
of ad hoc networks? The early applications of ad hoc networks are battlefield networks with transceivers
mounted on vehicles. Or do you mean wireless mesh networks?
Thank you for attracting our attention to this issue. Indeed, Figure 1 was better clarified and
more examples were provided making it easier for the reader to capture the main reasons behind
the classification illustrated in Figure 1. We kindly invite the reviewer to check out the changes in
the newly submitted revision of the original manuscript.
3) In the application example shown in Fig. 2: It is not feasible to require all vehicles are equipped
with the communication system. Even so, the communication systems may use different protocols. The
backward compatibility issue and the interoperability issue should be addressed here. This is because
for the application discussed, the vehicle in question would be safe if all the surrounding vehicles are
cooperative.
Thank you for pointing out this issue and allowing us to better explain this scenario: in a vehicular
network, and in the case where vehicles are equipped with a communication system and using the

a discussion of the performance of the EDCA function adapted in the IEEE 802. However.g. In this case. it would be good to introduce some structure .C1.C1). Thank you for your feedback and comments and please allow us to clarify. there is still external collision. and they will have to later contend for channel access. simulation. which is a CSMA/CA protocol which uses shorter AIFS for higher priority data packets. simulation. in this case. and they are intended to assist the driver in making decisions that for his own safety as well as for the safety of surrounding vehicles.. Having said the above. IV. in our revision. However. 6) In the review of related literature (e. colliding nodes engage in a backoff procedure as described in the Distributed Coordination Function (DCF) of the IEEE 802. We have included in our revision several studies that provide more theoretical. or measurement) to clearly illustrate what are the challenges in such networks with respect to network/communication related requirements. safety messages are disseminated over the Control CHannel (CCH).C1) 5) Although several application scenarios are provided to motivate the protocols and the illustrate the challenges in vehicular networks. Moreover. Some discussions or performance evaluations would be helpful to clarify this issue. we present 2 papers that address this particular goal (first 2 paragraphs of Section III.2 same communication protocol. it would helpful to provide more rigorous examples (theoretical. IV. 4) The discussion of IEEE 802. The scheduling of the prioritized data packet transmissions on an internal level is performed by the Tiered Contention Multiple Access (TCMA) protocol.11p standard is necessary. as well as real field-test observations of channel access in vehicular networks. it is believed that the driver is cooperative..D3 in the presently submitted revision. with a lower priority packet from another node. we also investigate an external packet collision and how to resolve such collisions. e. However.D1. We did present 3 studies that suggest the latter mechanism for external packet collision resolution.C2. a higher priority packet can be transmitted earlier within the node level due to the shor tAIFS assigned to the class. Both studies show that the QoS cannot be guaranteed for lower-priority ACs. it is questionable to me how QoS can be guaranteed with such a design. We highly appreciate this very constructive comment from the reviewer. It is true that external collision take place when different packets from different nodes are granted to the same Transmission Opportunity (TxOP).11p MAC in Section III-B: with the EDCA priority-based mechanism. III.11a protocol.D2. The reviewer is kindly invited to go over sections III.(last 2 paragraphs of Section III. some vehicles’ OBU are designed in such a way that they control the vehicle in severe safety-related conditions. Therefore. Several previous studies have proposed packet retransmission for this purpose. Since the nodes are not prioritized.g. and IV. in Section IV-D).

. 8) For the comparison of radios in Fig. Thank you for attracting our attention to this issue.” That is.. Line 43. Each subsection surveys a collection of papers that share a certain goal. The sensing of unused spectrum is the property of the cognitive radio. Page 5... 9) Typos: Throughout the paper.. That is. Furthermore. For example. in the beginning of section VI.” Throughout the paper.g. networks [2].g.11p? Thank you for highlighting this issue. the comment is extremely important and valuable. Line 6: ”a adaptation” == ”an adaptation” Thank you. and provide some qualitative/quantitative comparisons/classifications.11p. [2].” Page 2.” ==”. remove the comma before a citation. Indeed.. ”ideated”? Several places in the paper: ”the remaining of . Therefore. ”e.B.. networks. Thank you for pointing out this issue and allowing us to better explain this figure. We have organized section IV. Fixed. navigation . the sensing component is missing for cognitive radio. a hardware component. the last subsection provides a comparison between the discussed papers.3 to organize the related papers.” The text in Fig. We thank the reviewer for pointing out the existence of the above issues. any motivation for service providers to use LTE rather than 802.D and subdivided it into 4 subsections for the readers convenience. 2 is garbled.. . add a comma after ”e. navigation . Left.B). The reviewer is invited to go over these changes and give us his feedback. as well as business-related advantages of LTE over WAVE standards.” == ”the remaining part of . We have added. practical. which is. Line 51: ”such photos” == ”such as photos” Page 6. We hope that he finds our revised letter satisfactory.....g. 13. right. the sensing component in Figure 13 is integrated in the hardware component. We also thank him for his constructive and essential feedback as well as for his time and effort in thoroughly reading our manuscript. Table V discusses the technical. a paragraph that motivates LTE’s deployment rather than IEEE 802.. We also mention the limitations of LTE applicability in vehicular networks at the end of the same section (VI.” == ”e. ”. 7) Some discussion of business model (in addition to technical pros and cons) would be good. Furthermore.

The reviewer is kindly invited to check out these changes in the newly submitted revision of the survey. We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. being an in-network data-processing technique. which are available in other papers.C1 to discuss packet loss recovery and its usefulness in providing efficient cooperative driver assistance by using network coding. The reviewer is invited to go over section IV. 3) The paper suffers from lack of focus. Also there are significant introductory material on LTE and Congnitive Radio (or dynamic spectrum sharing). which providers some useful direction for research Thank you for raising this point. we presented several studies in this regard and showed how packet restransmission using efficient coding can increase packet delivered ratio. We have dedicated the last 2 paragraphs of section III.D2) which discusses. Hence. Network coding. We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. we present the advantages and disadvantages of using it in different scenarios and for various goals. LTE and Cognitive Radio are out of focus making the paper an assemble of loosely connected topics. increases the network capacity and packet throughput in vehicular networks. In the submitted revision. the safety and transmission efficiency can be achieved simultaneously. In our revision. Furthermore. Furthermore. In our revision. for each technology. and as a result. but it didn’t discuss the issue of selecting the interval durations for the CCH and SCH in each cycle. in the submitted revision.4 Reviewer #2 1) Packet loss recovery: there are recent works on how to use network coding to recover lost packets in vehicular safety communications. we have included a subsection (IV. The paper would be more focused if it stayed with the MAC and multi-channel.D2 for verification. Packet loss recovery is indeed a good suggestion to resolve external packet collisions. the service provider has the choice to choose the most suitable technology that fits the desired application. in details. we have cut down the introductory material in both LTE and Cognitive radio to briefly present the physical layer and its properties so that the main focus is . We have also included the suggested paper as well as many others which handle a similar problem. 2) Modeling multi-channel operation: The paper discussed several issues with multi-channel. In particular. the studies done for efficiently selecting the duration of the CCH and SCH intervals. we have stressed on the fact that this survey provides the reader with an overview of all technologies exploitable in vehicular networks. which affects both safety communication reliability and the available bandwidth for non-safety.

It would be necessary to classify many approaches into some small number of basic appraches and organize the sections and subsections accordingly. the reader is referred to other manuscripts. However. but it suffers from occasional use of unusual word choice.. For further details about the LTE and cognitive technology. ”atrocious” on page 8.5 on the MAC layer of these two technologies and its exploitability in vehicular networks. at the end of each section corresponding to a certain protocol. We highly appreciate his positive feedback on our work and welcome all his comments.4 (multi-channel) makes sure that vehicles switch to CCH in synchronisation (using global clocks such as GPS clock). 6) correct the spelling from somth to smooth. we have adequately addressed the reviewer’s comments and we hope he finds the revised manuscript satisfying and in a better shape. The reviewer is invited to go over these changes and give us his feedback. but it does have some technical inaccuracies. We thank the reviewer for this constructive comment. We have organized the literature survey sections by subdividing them into further subsections for the readers convenience. which is a different issue) Thank you for pointing out this issue and allowing us to better explain. etc. 4) The paper is mostly written as describing paper by paper. then it cannot stay on SCH when it should be switched to CCH (unless it malfunctions and tampered with. we are presenting a previously-done work where the authors proposed that a subset of vehicles tune in the SCH during the SCI. For example. we do present a discussion on this particular approach and question its feasibility. We totally agree with the reviewer concerning this raised comment. Furthermore. In this present revision. We kindly invite the reviewer to check these changes. a comparison between the discussed papers is provided. Fixed. Thank you. . such as ”fame” on page 2. on page 11.’: The writing style is generally good (easy to read). in the mentioned-paragraph. the standard 1609. while the rest engage in V2V communications in an ad-hoc manner to exchange safety-related applications. Each subsection surveys a collection of papers that share a certain goal. We thank the reviewer for his time and valuable feedback. This would be considered as ”new” contribution. Furthermore. 5) The paper is generally correct. Therefore. However. if a vehicle is fitted with a standards compliant DSRC radio. it says that it may be possible that some vehicles stay on SCH while others transmit on CCH.

We thank the reviewer for raising this very important and delicate comment. Truly. While reading the paper authors have presented all the topics without discussing in which application which wireless technology would be used or tradeoffs between various technology or in which used case which technology should be used. there exists a lot of efforts that aim at enhancing the use of a certain technology in vehicular networks. for each presented technology. This paper has already been cited 84 times (according to Google scholar) and is an important paper in the DSRC standards literature. for each topic. Furthermore. we have included a summary-like comparison which makes it easier for the reader to remember the work done in a certain direction as well as our observation regarding this work. 2) I notice that authors discuss a particular topic and then provide selective literature survey. 3) The authors have missed a very important reference for DSRC protocol stack: John Kenney.4 standard. LTE. Furthermore. But at many places the two are not properly connected. We carefully addressed this comment by creating a smooth transition between the discussion about a certain technology and the presented studies. The reviewer is invited to go over these changes and give us his feedback. 2011. I am concerned that because of the existing paper there is a limited novelty in Section III. the service provider chooses which technology to deploy in a certain scenario. We believe that the unifying theme of using the described technologies is any vehicular network. Not sure how authors missed this paper.11p MAC. Many times it seems authors are mostly summarizing the papers in the literature. we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using it in different scenarios and for various goals.6 Reviewer #3 1) The authors have covered many topics related to vehicular networking: DSRC. we have stressed on the fact that. The author in the paper have discussed in great detail 802. We thank the reviewer for this constructive and valuable comment. and based on the discussed goals and proposed solutions in previous studies. as we develop the survey. . PHY and 1609. ”Dedicated short-range communications (DSRC) standards in the United States” Proceeding of IEEE. figures. In the submitted revision. However. and IV. we have presented to the user several applications along with all exploitable technologies in vehicular networks. cognitive radio without a unifying application or theme. A good survey paper will have adequate comparison tables. numerical results etc. of this manuscript. I think otherwise it is hard for a reader to get a good overview picture of why all these technologies are relevant. at the end of each section corresponding to a certain topic.

in details. 6) The authors have mentioned in Section VI ”On a microscopic scale. Indeed.C for further details. We kindly invite the reviewer to check out the changes in the newly submitted revision of the original manuscript. refer the reader to the paper: John Kenney.11p and 1609 standards. EU and Japan and should be adequately covered in the paper. the IEEE 802. in a medium-to-high traffic intensity network. 5) The authors have discussed LTE’s role for vehicular networking but have failed to discuss device to device communications.7 We thank the reviewer for pointing out the existence of the above issue. Device to Device communications would be a very crucial feature in enabling LTE for vehicular use and should be part of a survey paper on this topic. we addressed this notion by presenting the work of 3 recent studies exploiting this aspect of LTE in vehicular environments. This is especially true in cases where nodes experience heavy high-priority data traffic”. Thank you for raising this important issue and granting us the chance to further explain this idea. As a result. Various projects have taken place in US. ”Dedicated short-range communications (DSRC) standards in the United States” Proceeding of IEEE. it is most likely that. yet concise description of the PHY and MAC sublayers of the WAVE standards and. 4) The discussion provided on real field test is very limited in Section III. The reviewer is invited to go over section VI. As a matter of fact. 5 more projects were covered (in addition to the 4 others previously explored). We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. We thank the reviewer for highlighting this issue. the IEEE 802. for further details. Can authors have specify practical examples of the cases where nodes will experience heavy truly high priority traffic data? Note that periodic beacon messages will go on lower priority and to me heavy high priority data seems highly unlikely. 2011. Device to device communication is a key feature in LTE. The reviewer is kindly invited to go over the updated section and give us his feedback. we have carefully addressed many realistic field-test experiments that aim at evaluating the performance of IEEE 802.11ps EDCA prioritybased mechanism suffers from several loopholes rendering it often prone to failure in ensuring fair access to all of a nodes internal AC queues. high-priority traffic will internally accumlate in high-priority AC queues making it even less probable for a low-priority packet to be released from . we provide a brief. As a result of this constructive comment. the mentioned paper is very important and discusses.11p-based communications.C2. Since the EDCA priority-based mechanism gives advantage for high priority access categories. and. a specific node may not be able to use the spectrum frequently. in our revised version. In our revised manuscript.

this mechanism is prone to failure in ensuring fair access to all of a node’s internal AC queues. . We addressed all of your concerns and we invite you to go over the newly revised version of our survey and provide us with your feedback. characteristics and requirements of these three classes of networks. We kindly invite the reviewer to check out the changes and provide us with his feeback. what do the authors mean by legacy network? Also. We are grateful for your time and effort in reading our manuscript and providing us with your constructive feedback and comments. Thank you for highlighting this issue and allowing us to better explain. We appreciate his positive feedback on our work and welcome his comments. In our revised submission. We hope our revised submission meets the reviewer’s expectations. what are the meaning of networking and overlay words in this figure? In order to make this classification more clear. Reviewer #4 The rationale behind the network classification presented in Figure 1 must be better explained. For instance. the authors should give some examples of the mentioned operational environment differences. Hence. We thank the reviewer for his time and effort in reviewing our survey.8 this specific node. Figure 1 was better clarified and more examples were provided so that this newly emerging classification of wireless networks is better understood.