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

[Aaron Kaplan <[e-mail]>]

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.

> 
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: gaia [mailto:[e-mail]] En nombre de Niels ten Oever
> > Enviado el: viernes, 18 de marzo de 2016 15:01
> > Para: Jose Saldana <[e-mail]>
> > CC: [e-mail]; Internet Research Steering Group <[e-mail]>
> > 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:[e-mail]] En nombre de Niels ten
> > >>>> Oever Enviado el: martes, 02 de febrero de 2016 18:11
> > >>>> Para: Jose Saldana <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > >>>> CC: 'Javier Simó' <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > >>>> 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:[e-mail]] En nombre de Javier Simó Enviado
> > >>>>>>> el: lunes, 01 de febrero de 2016 14:09 Para: [e-mail]
> > >>>>>>> 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:[e-mail]] En nombre de Mat Ford Enviado
> > >>>>>>>>>  el: lunes, 01 de febrero de 2016 13:27 Para: Niels ten Oever
> > >>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]>;
> > >>>>>>>>> draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network- [e-mail] CC:
> > >>>>>>>>> gaia <[e-mail]>; Internet Research Steering Group
> > >>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]> 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 [e-mail].
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Mat
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 30 Jan 2016, at 23:35, Niels ten Oever
> > >>>>>>>>>> <[e-mail]> 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 [e-mail] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ gaia
> > mailing
> > >>>>>>>> list [e-mail] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------- Fco. Javier
> > >>>>>>> Simó Reigadas <[e-mail]> Subdirector de Ord. Docente
> > >>>>>>> ETS de Ingeniería de Telecomunicación D-204, Departamental III
> > >>>>>>> Camino Del Molino, s/n - 28943 Fuenlabrada (Madrid) Tel:
> > >>>>>>> 914888428, Fax: [phone] Web personal:
> > >>>>>>> http://www.tsc.urjc.es/~javier.simo
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ gaia
> > mailing
> > >>>>>>> list  [e-mail] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> gaia mailing list
> > >>>> [e-mail]
> > >>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
> > >>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia

-- 
Physicist are there to find the laws of nature. Engineers are there to work around them