======= Review 1 ======= Relevance 4: Good match Novelty 3: Incremental Contribution 3: Worthwhile contribution Presentation 4: Clear Recommendation 3: Possible accept Comments Author proposes an analytical model considering the beaconing in VANET. They also summarize what the application and requirements are in VANET. The paper is well written. 1. This is basically just a performance evaluation paper. They should have provided the motivation of such analysis in the abstract section (why this work is important?). 2. Authors should mention how the contention window is increased in the graph (it seems linearly, however IEEE 802.11 they used to make it double whenever collision takes place until a maximum value). 3. Figure 1 and 3 are well explained; however, there is no related explanation for the Figure 2. 4. Authors state based on figure 3 “The results in the broadcast case are in line with those predicted by the Bianchi model [8], the optimal contention window increasing with the vehicular density. On the other hand, for beaconing, we can observe a steady decrease, as predicted by our model.” It implies that based on density of vehicles a particular approach can be adopted (either Broadcast or beacon). In that case, what can be the decision criteria for selecting a particular approach? Who would be responsible for making such decision? (they can address these issues in their future works) 5. Authors must provide equation number. 6. All the references should end with a full stop (.). ======= Review 2 ======= Relevance 5: Perfect match Novelty 4: Significant Contribution 3: Worthwhile contribution Presentation 4: Clear Recommendation 4: Accept ======= Review 3 ======= Relevance 4: Good match Novelty 4: Significant The paper studies beaconing protocol in vehicular ad-hoc networks (VANET). The topic is interesting, novel and also important. Contribution 3: Worthwhile contribution The paper discusses the characteristics of the vehicular beacons. Through theoretical formulation and simulation, the authors show that the broadcasting protocols in the ETSI and IEEE standards highly reduce the reception probability of safety messages, and hence are not suitable for vehicular ad-hoc networks (VANET). This is important for protocol design in future V2V networks. Presentation 2: Needs work Presentation of the paper is acceptable. Some comments and suggestions are as follows: 1)In page 2, paragraph 3, line 3, the “DEN” here is not a new abbreviation, please move it out of the brackets. 2)Please rewrite the section of conclusion in a more concise way. 3)Some comma and stop signs are missed in references. Please double-check all references to make sure that they are consistent with the IEEE bib style. 4)Please number equations. Recommendation 4: Accept Comments Please also carefully consider following comments and suggestions in revision of the paper. 1) In page 2, the authors state that "CAMs and DENs present a strong interest to all surrounding vehicles and therefore ...". It seems that this is not always true, e.g., a car might do not care the brake signal of cars behind of it. Please comments truth of the statement in practical vehicular networks. 2) In page 3, the authors assume that $E[n_i]\approx 2$, please comment justification of this assumption. 3) In Fig. 2, it seems that result of the theoretical model does not match the simulations. Please comment applicability of the proposed theoretical model. ======= Review 4 ======= Relevance 4: Good match Novelty 4: Significant Contribution 4: Solid work Presentation 5: Excellent Recommendation 5: Definite accept