1. Rating
Rate the paper in the following categories (For each category,
choose a one numeric rating)

Overall grade (overall, how do you rate this summary paper?)
3: Good

Language (how fluent is the language, did you understand what this 
paper is saying?)
4: Very good

Technical quality
5: Contents are completely correct. There are no errors. It corresponds
information on the source material. 

Editorial quality
5: Clear, understandable and easy to read

Confidence (how confident are you about this review?)
1: This is a completely new subject to me; I made educated guesses


2. Detailed comments

Provide detailed written comments on the paper.  In general, your
main aim as a reviewer is to help improve the paper. Be as specific
as you can when you point out errors or problems. Suggest concrete
improvements whenever possible.

Your review should cover the following three aspects.  Use the
suggested guidelines in composing your review for each aspect.


In section 5.1 it is just mentioned that wireless multicast advantage
causes increase in interferences and collisions. This could use a bit
more explanation: What is actually the cause of the increase?

In sections 5.2 - 5.4 (the sections including the tree construction) I
would have expected a bit more thorough explanation on how the
protocols actually work. BIP is the only protocol actually explained
(and that lacks the details also, for example what happens if a node
is added to the tree, and then realized it can be achieved more
efficiently from some other node, if such scenario even is
possible). For BLU and BLiMST it is said only that the underlying
algorithms and protocols are used. Of course, the constraint of 5
pages limits a lot the possibility to go into the details...

Section 6 with the energy efficient routing protocols lacks same kind
of description of the protocols as mentioned previously. 

All in all, the paper gives quite a good summary of multicast aspects,
but on a bit too abstract level. Thus the overall grade 3: Good

Details:	
- The captions of Figures 5&6 are quite odd, as both figures display
only one tree 
- First sentence of Sec 5: Is it said in the reference, that the
section contains the explanation?  :)  You could revise the structure
of the sentence
- Section 6.3 "This protocol is a mesh-based one." At least I don't
know what mesh-based protocol means, so it might be good to clarify
this a bit.