Reviewer 1 Comments:
The authors claim to have development a simple algorithm
(called Adaptive Drop-Tail - ADT) for keeping queuing delays
small, while maintaining a certain desired utilization of
buffers. However, Adaptive Drop-Tail algorithms are not novels.
In the work "Adaptive Drop-Tail: A simple and efficient active
queue management algorithm? published in the Proceedings of
Intl. Teletraffic Congress (Berlim, Sept. 1-5, 2003), the
authors1 also described an Adaptive Drop-Tail Algorithm. As a
consequence, the paper under analysis presents a "new
version?for so-called ADT. In this way, I would like to suggest
that a little change in the expression (second page) " we
develop a simple algorithm, called Adaptive Drop-Tail (ADT) ".
It seems that ADT is a jargon created by the authors.

However, it is important to emphasize some issues related to
organization of the paper: ?Reference [8] is not cited (
refereed ) throughout the text. ?The webpage linked by Reference
[6] could not be found. ?The reference list is not organized
considering the citations in the text (i.e., reference [4] is
cited before than reference [3]. ?Some acronyms/abbreviations
appear without meaning (ECN, RTT). I would like to suggest that
these acronyms/abbreviations are linked to their meaning (Round
Trip Time ?RTT and so on). ?The table is not refereed in the
text with a number. I would like to suggest that such table
appear refereed in the text, as well as a caption to it. ?In the
conclusion, the expression "Finally, we note that ADT strives to
adjust ?? the word "strive?seems to suggest a drawback of the
method. I would like to suggest that this point was clarified
(if this is a drawback or not).

Reviewer 2 Comments:
The manuscript is based on the most recent reseach results
on buffer sizing. The authors proposed an adaptive algorithm to
keep the available buffer size as small as possible while
maintaining a certain level of utilization. Also the algorithm
is simple and easy to implement in current routers. The
effectiveness of the algorithm is proved through simulations.
The manuscript is well written and eligible for publicaiton.

Some suggestions:
1. The set of the parameters of the algorithm in the evaluation
section lacks transparency. Why these parameters should be
chosen like that and how if we change them. Maybe the authors
should compare with different parameter settings.
2. The analysis of the simulation results should be more
detailed and the figures should be more clear. For example the
three figures in Fig.1 should be indicated clearly. The
implication of the first figure in Fig.2 should be further
clarified.

Reviewer 3 Comments:
The letter proposes an adaptive tuning of the network
buffer size aimed at minimizing the overall delay by
guaranteeing a fixed level of utilization of the link. It is
addressed an interesting problem and, in particular, a simple
and nice solution has been proposed. The paper is mostly well
written and sufficient details have been added to allow the
complete comprehension of the paper.
Just some theoretical observations about the proposed algorithm:
is it derived from an optimization problem? Are the selected
parameters (c, d) the result of a thorough performance
investigation? From this reviewer viewpoint the proposal is an
heuristic. If it is true, what is the performance if an
optimization problem is used? A comparison with an optimal
performance, which is a benchmark, may be useful to clarify the
goodness of the proposed algorithm. This reviewer would see the
(strongly) suggested comparison (in practice with an ideal
performance) in the letter before publication but nevertheless
the good level of quality of the work allows suggesting the
acceptance of the letter.