Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Sun, 20 March 2016 13:00 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22CA712D771; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 06:00:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.302
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.302 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WcYwR9aOQwDc; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 06:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 650B112D752; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 06:00:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68251BE8A; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 13:00:27 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GRNEoBwh5Pqm; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 13:00:19 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.49.100] (unknown [86.46.21.5]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 70DEEBE50; Sun, 20 Mar 2016 13:00:18 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1458478819; bh=OchR1/rqUb1GmDXG3MYGjMpkj7Je0bxIsD93Wv/6uqs=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=TdTDXpYSVZDyvnWEyjeizg9sasx+As+yFWEAVx1yDuaJE9soio+/VgbTwSrhIG2aP vlU1NrZEzjm+QJ6qbwUhL5w5s8PKWH09KauUZmGU5Wgb3YFQTjUuEk5a0o+NkJuIv/ 7RFnhi33JRzyHFQvKguWJNCtYFFj/okn67rzf3JE=
To: Aaron Kaplan <aaron@lo-res.org>, Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
References: <003101d17914$247b6b30$6d724190$@unizar.es> <56E8294E.6040807@article19.org> <a1bda1d46bf7fa6c87ea9c678823b38a@unizar.es> <56EC0A21.8010009@article19.org> <00c301d18128$a40e71a0$ec2b54e0$@unizar.es> <20160320125110.GD32067@mate.lo-res.org>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <56EE9EE1.9030700@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 13:00:17 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160320125110.GD32067@mate.lo-res.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms070309020409080308040107"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/0j27v1TmKvRrMjSfoZ53wBwAnTo>
Cc: gaia@irtf.org, 'Niels ten Oever' <niels@article19.org>, 'Matthew Ford' <ford@isoc.org>, 'Internet Research Steering Group' <irsg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments
X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All <gaia.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/gaia>, <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gaia/>
List-Post: <mailto:gaia@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia>, <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 13:00:34 -0000


On 20/03/16 12:51, Aaron Kaplan wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 04:12:50PM +0100, Jose Saldana wrote:
>> The new version of the draft has just been submitted.
>>
>> Best regards and thanks a lot!
>>
>> Jose
> 
> 
> The paper rised some eyebrows amongst the community networks - 
> in a surprised, rather negative way.
> People had the feeling that the paper does not reflect reality very
> much.
> 
> Seems like the community networks were not really interviewed properly.

That sound concerning but not actionable.

Is there any way to get detailed feedback on that that would
allow the authors/RG to improve the draft or otherwise document
what's claimed to be missing here?

Cheers,
S.


> 
>>
>>> -----Mensaje original-----
>>> De: gaia [mailto:gaia-bounces@irtf.org] En nombre de Niels ten Oever
>>> Enviado el: viernes, 18 de marzo de 2016 15:01
>>> Para: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
>>> CC: gaia@irtf.org; Internet Research Steering Group <irsg@irtf.org>
>>> Asunto: Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-
>>> deployments
>>>
>>> Thanks for the quick turnaround Jose. This all looks great to me.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Niels
>>>
>>> Niels ten Oever
>>> Head of Digital
>>>
>>> Article 19
>>> www.article19.org
>>>
>>> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>>>                    678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>>>
>>> On 03/18/2016 11:53 AM, Jose Saldana wrote:
>>>> Hello Niels.
>>>>
>>>> I have added new versions of the sentences inline, starting with [JS].
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jose,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks a lot for this. I think the docoment really improved. The
>>>>> examples at the end of the topologies make everything more concrete
>>>>> and add relevance to the document.
>>>>>
>>>>> I still have a few (small) issues with:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.
>>>>> The first sentence of the abstract is quite complex. Can you
>>>>> rephrase? I think the abstract covers the content really well though,
>>>>> so this is only textual.
>>>>
>>>> [JS]    This document presents a taxonomy of a set of "Alternative Network
>>>>         Deployments" emerged in the last decade with the aim of bringing
>>>>         Internet connectivity to people. They employ architectures and
>>>>         topologies different from those of mainstream networks, and rely
>>>>         on alternative business models.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2.
>>>>> Add a reference to GAIA charter (source of the quote I presume) in
>>>>> the introduction.
>>>>
>>>> [JS] added:
>>>>    [GAIA]     Internet Research Task Force, IRTF., "Charter: Global
>>>>               Access to the Internet for All Research Group GAIA",
>>>>               available at https://irtf.org/gaia , 2016.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3.
>>>>> 1.1, 2nd bullet, 's are used' can be removed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [JS]
>>>>               Top-down control of the network and centralized approach.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 4.
>>>>> I still have issues with the lemma on Developed and developing
>>>>> countries in the way it is used now. I think the easiest way to
>>>>> resolve this is to use the terms 'Global north' and 'global south'.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also advise to remove a reference to 'the folk way of living' and
>>>>> 'the modern technology-driven way of living which began in the
>>>>> Industrial Revolution'. Because: a) it implies a false linearity.
>>>>> 'The modern technology driven-way of living' is not the only way to
>>>>> progress. b) it creates two false unities, not all ways of living
>>>>> (and uses of
>>>>> technology) are the same in the global south nor the global north.
>>>>> There is a multitude of uses and appropriations of technology.
>>>>
>>>> [JS] New versions of different paragraphs:
>>>>
>>>> [JS] In section 2:
>>>>
>>>>    o  "Global north" and "global south": Although there is no consensus
>>>>       on the terms to be used when talking about the different
>>>>       development level of countries, we will employ the term "global
>>>>       south" to refer to nations with a relatively lower standard of
>>>>       living.  This distinction is normally intended to reflect basic
>>>>       economic country conditions.  In common practice, Japan in Asia,
>>>>       Canada and the United States in northern America, Australia and
>>>>       New Zealand in Oceania, and Europe are considered "developed"
>>>>       regions or areas [UN], so we will employ the term "global north"
>>>>       when talking about them.
>>>>
>>>> [JS] In section 3:
>>>>    Different studies have reported that as much as 60% of the people in
>>>>    the planet do not have Internet connectivity [Sprague],
>>>>    [InternetStats].  In addition, those unconnected are unevenly
>>>>    distributed: only 31 percent of the population in "global south"
>>>>    countries had access in 2014, against 80 percent in "global north"
>>>>    countries [WorldBank2016].  This is one of the reasons behind the
>>>>    inclusion of the objective of providing "significantly increase
>>>>    access to ICT and strive to provide universal and affordable access
>>>>    to internet in LDCs by 2020," as one of the targets in the
>>>>    Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [SDG], considered as a part of
>>>>    "Goal 9.  Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and
>>>>    sustainable industrialization and foster innovation."
>>>>
>>>>    For the purpose of this document, a distinction between "global
>>>>    north" and "global south" zones is made, highlighting the factors
>>>>    related to ICT (Information and Communication Technologies), which
>>>>    can be quantified in terms of:
>>>>
>>>>    (...)
>>>>
>>>>    Some Alternative Networks have been deployed in underserved areas,
>>>>    where citizens may be compelled to take a more active part in the
>>>>    design and implementation of ICT solutions.  However, Alternative
>>>>    Networks are also present in some "global north" countries, being
>>>>    built as an alternative to commercial ones managed by mainstream
>>>>    network operators.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [JS] 3.1.  Urban vs. Rural Areas
>>>>
>>>>    The differences presented in the previous section are not only
>>>>    present between countries, but within them too.  This is especially
>>>>    the case for rural inhabitants, who represent approximately 55% of
>>>>    the world's population [IFAD2011], 78% of them in "global south"
>>>>    countries [ITU2011].  According to the World Bank, adoption gaps
>>>>    "between rural and urban populations are falling for mobile phones
>>>>    but increasing for the internet" [WorldBank2016].
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [JS] 4.5.  Typical scenarios
>>>>
>>>>    The scenarios where Alternative Networks are usually deployed can be
>>>>    classified as:
>>>>
>>>>    o  Urban / Rural areas.
>>>>
>>>>    o  "Global north" / "Global south" countries.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [JS] 5.3.  Shared infrastructure model
>>>>
>>>>    +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
>>>>    | Commercial     | shared: companies and users                      |
>>>>    | model/promoter |                                                  |
>>>>    +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
>>>>    | Goals and      | to eliminate a capital expenditures barrier (to  |
>>>>    | motivation     | operators); lower the operating expenses         |
>>>>    |                | (supported by the community); to extend coverage |
>>>>    |                | to underserved areas                             |
>>>>    +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
>>>>    | Administration | Non-centralized                                  |
>>>>    +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
>>>>    | Technologies   | wireless in non-licensed bands, [WiLD] and/or    |
>>>>    |                | low-cost fiber, mobile femtocells                |
>>>>    +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
>>>>    | Typical        | rural areas, and more particularly rural areas   |
>>>>    | scenarios      | in "global south" regions                        |
>>>>
>>>> +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+
>>>>
>>>> [JS] 6.1.  Wired
>>>>
>>>>    In many ("global north" or "global south") countries it may happen
>>>>    that national service providers decline to provide connectivity to
>>>>    tiny and isolated villages.  So in some cases the villagers have
>>>>    created their own optical fiber networks.  This is the case in
>>>>    Lowenstedt in Germany [Lowenstedt], or some parts of Guifi.net
>>>>    [Cerda-Alabern].
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 5.
>>>>> Chapter 3. Scenarios where Alternative Networks are deployed Replace
>>>>> 'in' in first sentence with 'on'
>>>>
>>>> [JS] done
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 6.
>>>>> When you talk about WSIS, it might be good to talk about it in the
>>>>> past tense. AFAIK the new workplan after WSIS+10 evaluation has not
>>>>> been finalized, but I might be wrong.
>>>>> If the workplan has been finalized it might be good to reference to that.
>>>>
>>>> [JS] This is the new version:
>>>>
>>>>    In this context, the World Summit of the Information Society aimed at
>>>>    achieving "a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented
>>>>    Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and
>>>>    share information and knowledge.  Therefore, enabling individuals,
>>>>    communities and people to achieve their full potential in promoting
>>>>    their sustainable development and improving their quality of life".
>>>>    It also called upon "governments, private sector, civil society and
>>>>    international organizations" to actively engage to work towards the
>>>>    bridging of the digital divide [WSIS].
>>>>
>>>> [JS]: However, it seems that WSIS is still alive:
>>>> https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2016/
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Niels
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [JS] I have also corrected some typos, as suggested by
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg01102.html
>>>>
>>>> [JS] I have also added a "may" in this paragraph:
>>>>
>>>> 7.1.2.  Routing protocols
>>>>
>>>>    As stated in previous sections, Alternative Networks are composed of
>>>>    possibly different layer 2 devices, resulting in a mesh of nodes.
>>>>    Connection between different nodes is not guaranteed and the link
>>>>    stability can vary strongly over time.  To tackle this, some
>>>>    Alternative Networks use mesh network routing protocols while other
>>>>    networks use more traditional routing protocols.  Some networks
>>>>    operate multiple routing protocols in parallel.  For example, they
>>>>    *may* use a mesh protocol inside different islands and rely on
>>>>    traditional routing protocols to connect these islands.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I attach the new version. I will upload it to the IETF web as soon as
>>>> you are ok with these changes.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again,
>>>>
>>>> Jose
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Niels ten Oever
>>>>> Head of Digital
>>>>>
>>>>> Article 19
>>>>> www.article19.org
>>>>>
>>>>> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>>>>>                    678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>>>>>
>>>>> On 03/08/2016 09:25 AM, Jose Saldana wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Niels,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to your review, we have built a new version of the draft.
>>>>>> We have not uploaded it yet to the IETF web page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This e-mail contains three attachments:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - These are your general comments, and our responses:
>>>>>> General_Comments_Review_Niels.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - These are the detailed comments ([JS] means Jose Saldana), added
>>>>>> to your review (marked with "#"):
>>>>>> draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-03 edit NtO_JS2.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - And this would be the new version of the draft:
>>>>>> draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-03c.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you very much!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jose
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Mensaje original-----
>>>>>>> De: gaia [mailto:gaia-bounces@irtf.org] En nombre de Niels ten
>>>>>>> Oever Enviado el: martes, 02 de febrero de 2016 18:11
>>>>>>> Para: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>es>; gaia@irtf.org
>>>>>>> CC: 'Javier Simó' <javier.simo@urjc.es>es>; irsg@irtf.org
>>>>>>> Asunto: Re: [gaia] [irsg] Review required:
>>>>>>> draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-
>>>>>>> deployments
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Jose,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for this. Reply inline:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/02/2016 01:44 PM, Jose Saldana wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Dear Niels,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First of all, thank you very much for your detailed review. As
>>>>>>>>> said today, your comments will be useful for building an improved
>>> version.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My pleasure!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But I think here is something we should decide now: what to do
>>>>>>>>> about "deployment experiences", i.e. point 4 of your review.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. It could perhaps be interesting to provide some additional
>>>>>>>>>>>>> information on actual alternative network deployments,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps by providing some case studies and, on the basis of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these, a set of best practices / recommendations for specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>> situations.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As Javier says, we have discussed this possibility in the GAIA
>>>>>>>>> meeting in Prague
>>>>>>>>> (https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/minutes/minutes-93-gaia):
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Lixia Zhang: The Internet didn’t start as a community effort. On
>>>>>>>>> the draft, what is the main purpose? I’m interested in what you
>>>>>>>>> have learned, and what advice you may have.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Niels ten Oever: This is a great overview, but how will you set
>>>>>>>>> boundaries. There are lots of handbook materials that could be
>>>>>>>>> linked to, to avoid making this draft grow to 100s of pages. In
>>>>>>>>> particular we could define more on centralised v. decentralised
>>>>>>>>> approaches.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jane Coffin: Energy is also important for rural areas.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mat: I think the original motivation was to get a definition of
>>>>>>>>> “Alternative Networks”, it’s not scoped to be 100s of pages, but
>>>>>>>>> more can we define what we mean as Alternative Networks, and
>>> then
>>>>>>>>> provide examples. Lixia’s suggestion of looking at learning
>>>>>>>>> outcomes, could be a future document that may be useful."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We also talked about that in the list, and we (more or less)
>>>>>>>>> agreed on this solution: to first focus on a "taxonomy" draft,
>>>>>>>>> and leave "deployment experiences" for future work.
>>>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg00831.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In fact, we already removed some content from the draft, as it
>>>>>>>>> was related to "deployment experiences". See parts removed from
>>>>>>>>> Section
>>>>>>>>> 4 in these two versions:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-net
>>>>>>>>> work-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> deployments-01&url2=draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-
>>>>>> 00
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And we have also asked for volunteers for the "deployment
>>>>>>>>> experiences" draft:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg00916.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So my opinion is that we should avoid including this in the
>>>>>>>>> present document. As you said in Prague, it is a matter of
>>>>>>>>> defining some boundaries on the scope of the document. What do
>>> you think?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would leave that for the authors and the group to decide. But
>>>>>> AFAIK there are a few major deployments / projects out there, such
>>>>>> as Freifunk (Germany), Guifi (Catalunia), Rhizomatica (Mexico), and
>>>>>> perhaps Commotion (Tunisia, Redhook, Congo). Referencing these could
>>>>>> bring the draft closer to actual practices (and with that increase
>>>>>> relevance). Another approach could be providing a concrete example
>>>>>> for every topology you define under 4.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I completely agree with you that deployment experiences should not
>>>>>> go into this draft, that would be too much. The same is true for
>>>>>> providing an exhaustive list of implementations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hope this helps,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Niels
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jose
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -----Mensaje original----- De: gaia
>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:gaia-bounces@irtf.org] En nombre de Javier Simó Enviado
>>>>>>>>>> el: lunes, 01 de febrero de 2016 14:09 Para: gaia@irtf.org
>>>>>>>>>> Asunto: Re: [gaia] [irsg] Review required:
>>>>>>>>>> draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network- deployments
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For the most important points (the most detailed ones), there
>>>>>>>>>> are a few good interdisciplinary people in this lists with a
>>>>>>>>>> background in development studies. I guess that it is just a
>>>>>>>>>> matter of these people polishing the text.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For point 4, ... well, the decission after Prague was to TAKE
>>>>>>>>>> OUT the experiences and build another document. If experiences
>>>>>>>>>> are required in here, then, we should reverse that decission and
>>>>>>>>>> pilot a controlled introduction of best practices / case studies
>>>>>>>>>> in the appropriate subsections.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best Javier
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> El 01/02/16 a las 13:58, Jose Saldana escribió:
>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you very much, Niels!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We will take your comments into account in order to build an
>>>>>>>>>>> improved version of
>>>>>>>>>> the draft.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jose
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Mensaje original----- De: gaia
>>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:gaia-bounces@irtf.org] En nombre de Mat Ford Enviado
>>>>>>>>>>>>  el: lunes, 01 de febrero de 2016 13:27 Para: Niels ten Oever
>>>>>>>>>>>> <niels@article19.org>rg>;
>>>>>>>>>>>> draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network- deployments@ietf.org CC:
>>>>>>>>>>>> gaia <gaia@irtf.org>rg>; Internet Research Steering Group
>>>>>>>>>>>> <irsg@irtf.org> Asunto: Re: [gaia] [irsg] Review required:
>>>>>>>>>>>> draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network- deployments
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks very much for the detailed review Niels, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> valuable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Authors - please discuss how you would like to address these
>>>>>>>>>>>> comments and let Niels and myself know. If there is a need for
>>>>>>>>>>>> further discussion, please let’s keep that on gaia@irtf.org.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Mat
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30 Jan 2016, at 23:35, Niels ten Oever
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <niels@article19.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please find my review of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-d
>>>>>>>>>>>>> eploy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> me
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> nt s-03.txt below. This is my first IRSG review, so please bear with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> me.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I mostly followed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://wiki.tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5743#section-2.2 and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> academic review practices, but please let me know where I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> might have misstepped.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope this is useful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0. The topic of the draft is very relevant and timely and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> brings together many different angles that are needed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> address the multidisciplinary nature of access, the Internet,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and community owned
>>>>>>>>>> networks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The issue of the digital divide is approached from a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'development studies' paradigm (e.g. developing countries),
>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite some scientific literature has been published about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this topic. Most current literature acknowledges that for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance term 'developing country' is problematic because it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assumes that all countries are on a similar trajectory, from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'underdeveloped' to 'western'.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Empirical data shows that this is not the case. More accurate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be to address differential developmental trajectories
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by referring to the Global North vs. the Global South, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> using other frames.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also terms like 'Digital Divide', 'Data Revolution',
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Information Society' as well as the 'WSIS process' have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dissected, discussed and interpreted in quite a variety of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways. it might be good to engage with the literature on this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if you would like to use these terms, and if so, refer to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> relevant sources.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Same is true for the method or model of knowledge transfer
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is mentioned in the draft. At several places it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> implied that knowledge travels from North to South and from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Urban to Rural, which might be a one dimensional way of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> representing a quite multifaceted process of technology
>>>>>>>>>>>>> appropriation and development.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In terms of methodology: you are clearly coming at this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem from a multidisciplinary approach. Which is great,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> considering the multidisciplinary nature of the Internet and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the problem you are addressing. However, if you do decide to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> use concepts from different fields and disciplines (like for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instance urban and rural from urban planning, demand and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> provision from economics or the digital divide from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sociology) it is important to make this explicit. I would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest adding a sub-section in which you explain how you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> built your multidisciplinary research method and why you use
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the concepts you applied.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. There is a lot of doubling between abstract and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> introduction. I recommend reducing the abstract.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. The discussion under point 1. and 2. is maybe not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary for achieving the goal of providing a a taxonomy of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative network deployments. However, Maybe the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>> part could be shorter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. It could perhaps be interesting to provide some additional
>>>>>>>>>>>>> information on actual alternative network deployments,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps by providing some case studies and, on the basis of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> these, a set of best practices / recommendations for specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>> situations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the attached file more inline editorial comments and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggestions are provided.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Niels
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Article 19 www.article19.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 636D 68E9
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Article 19 www.article19.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 636D 68E9
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 01/14/2016 12:39 PM, Mat Ford wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The GAIA RG has successfully concluded an RG Last Call for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the document
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-irtf-gaia-alternativ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e-net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> wo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> rk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -deployments/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As document shepherd I’m now looking for someone from
>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IRSG to review
>>>>>>>>>>>> the document. Any volunteers?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If no one volunteers, Lisandro Granville is top of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/irtf/trac/wiki/IRSGReviewL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> og
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mat
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-03 edit
>>>>>>>>>>>>> NtO.txt>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> gaia mailing
>>>>>>>>>>>> list gaia@irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ gaia
>>> mailing
>>>>>>>>>>> list gaia@irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------- Fco. Javier
>>>>>>>>>> Simó Reigadas <javier.simo@urjc.es> Subdirector de Ord. Docente
>>>>>>>>>> ETS de Ingeniería de Telecomunicación D-204, Departamental III
>>>>>>>>>> Camino Del Molino, s/n - 28943 Fuenlabrada (Madrid) Tel:
>>>>>>>>>> 914888428, Fax: 914887500 Web personal:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.tsc.urjc.es/~javier.simo
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ gaia
>>> mailing
>>>>>>>>>> list  gaia@irtf.org https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> gaia mailing list
>>>>>>> gaia@irtf.org
>>>>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>>>>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> gaia mailing list
>> gaia@irtf.org
>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>