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?)
      4: Very good
      
   Language (how fluent is the language, did you understand what this 
   paper is saying?)
      5: Excellent
       
   Technical quality
      5: Contents are completely correct. There are no errors. It corresponds
         information on the source material. 
       
   Editorial quality
      3: Understandable with some effort, several improvements suggested
         below
       
   Confidence (how confident are you about this review?)
      2: I have some general knowledge of this subject

2. Detailed comments

    1 - General comments:
	a - In the abstract:
	The author wrote about he paper:
		“It analyzes five hybrid protocols and presents their performance.”
	The comment:
		What about writing “their advantages and disadvantages” instead of
		“their performance.”.
			
		Because the performance evaluation commonly should be defined based
		on performance studies which include packet losses and delays and
		similar measurements, which is not included in the paper.

		Also the paper is a very well descriptive ,REALLY V.GOOD WORK,
		one more than an analytical one. But compressing the details some
		how would be better.

	b - Generally for each protocol, two references where used. It is ok!
	But, is it better to set the number of the reference directly net to its
	related specific part in the text?

    2 - On page 1 : The introduction
	The author wrote:
		“The optimal routing protocol depends on network characteristics and
		may change dynamically.”
	The comments:
		a - When I read the statement for the two first times I though that
		there is a protocol called “The optimal routing protocol”, but after
		some time I realized that it may mean “the degree to which a protocol
		is considered to be optimal”.
	
		b - What is meant by “may change dynamically”, the network
		characteristics or the protocol.

    3 - On page 2 on line 8:
	The author wrote:
		“This core originates a reply message to the source core”
	The comments:
		The statement may be confusing for a less familiar reader with the
		topic. Because the word core may refer to all the core members or to
		the core node.

    4 - On page 3 line 10:
	A typo mistake: “more then”, it should be “more than”

    5 - On page 3 line 7 after figure 2:
	A scientific accuracy mistake:
	The author wrote:
		“Due to its proactive nature, the route discovery ….”
	The comment:
		What about “route selection” or “route establishment” instead of
		“route discovery”? Because route discovery is a related process to the
		reactive protocols more than the proactive ones.

    6 - On page 3, line 6 from bottom:
	As for the term “bordercasts”: I was confused because of it for a while. I think
	It should be some how introduced before using it. I understood it after reading
	its following text for more than one time.
	Also two lines following it, what about writing “in-zone” as one word, it is a
	term also. And for a while I was confused about the statement “the efficiency
	of the in zone”, I thought there is some thing missing after “the”.
	
    7 - Page 4 & Page 5 seem to be perfect. REALLY V.GOOD WORK.

    8 - On page 6, line 8:
    	The author wrote:
		“The main function of reactive protocols is flooding the network …..”
	The comment:
		I think it should be “mechanism” or “method” instead of “function”. Because
		the function of such protocols as I understand is simply routing.
    9 - On page 6, line 10
	The author wrote:
		“As discussed in previous lectures”
	The comment:
		Should the paper be out of the scope of the lectures? A Standalone entity ?!
	
    10 - The rest of page 6 and page 7 are again seem to be perfect from the facts
	description and the editorial points of view. REALLY V.GOOD WORK
	But, are they very crowded with information with respect to a summary paper? and
	for mainly covering only one protocol? I can not get the whole picture of the covered
	protocol from it!

    11 - On page 8, line 5:
	The author wrote:
		“the received from it packets.”
	The comment:
		Should it be: “the received packets from it”

    12 - Again, The rest of page 7 and page 8 seem to be great from editorial and the
	facts description point of view. But I think it still crowded but less than the case on
	pages 6 & 7, I really can understand the OLSR protocol form it. GOOD WORK.