[SensorNetArch] Edits

[prabal at EECS.Berkeley.EDU]

Just a few comments for sections 1-3.  I've also attached the version of the PDF that I used in case these references have changed.  Let me know if you need any clarifications.  Looking pretty good.  Let me know if/when we should review section 4.

- Prabal

S,P,L = section/para/linenumber

S1,P1,L1: Why is
  "Wireless Sensor Networks"
capitalized?  Should the WSN acronym be introduced here or at least the ("sensornets") term which is used later in this paragraph?

S1,P1,L13: Consider changing "where" to "in which"

S2,P1,L15: The following sentence:

  "Thus, the traditional division of application, operating system, and network has been opened to re-examination"

could (1) become the beginning of a very nice paragraph, (2) be changed slightly to something like:

 "Thus, the traditional division of application, operating system, and network has been blurred."

and (3) be a *great* segway for launching the whole point of this paper (it kinda does that already, but it could worded more strongly): that existing applications have blurred this boundary precisely because there is no architecture and the whether and the degree to which this blurring is necessary (e.g. rich interfaces) but not desirable (e.g. abstraction) remains to be discovered.

S2,P1-P3: Consider changing the paragraph order 1,2,3 -> 2,3,1 since what is currently P1 ends with the perfect sentect for the next section.

S3,P2,L3: I don't follow the claim here; are we claiming that a narrow waist *can* exist, or that it *should* be the best-effort, single-hop broadcast, or *both*.  I don't disagree with the first claim, or at least I'm willing to suspend disbelief long to hear you out, but the second claim hasn't been sufficiently well motivated to be credible at this point in the paper.

S3,P2,LastLine-1: It's not clear to me what "packet boundary" mean in the following sentence:
  "...how functionality divides across the packet boundary is a key question."

S3,P3,L1: There seems to be conceptual jump between SP as a protocol (S3,P2) and the interface to SP (conceptual and API?)

Page 3, Line 2: "include" should be "including", I think.

Page 3, Line 8: consider "expose" rather than "project"

Page 3, Para 2, Line 10: there's a "to" missing after "competitive"

Page 3, Para 3: Should the idea of resource reservation (e.g. the MAC) be introduced?  Seems like it might be an obvious extension of the concepts presented.

Page 3, Para 4: The modifier "address-free" has not been introduced previously in this paper (at least not that I noticed).  Some readers (including me) might assume that broadcasts usually are sent to a broadcast address. If this is not case, need to mention before introducing this term.

Page 3, Para 4: Seems like mentioning the kind of "annotation" that Click supports is a good analogy to the attaching metadata problem.









-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: architecture.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 163120 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.millennium.berkeley.edu/pipermail/sensornetarch/attachments/20050201/434761fd/architecture-0001.pdf