Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments
Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es> Tue, 15 March 2016 16:47 UTC
Return-Path: <jsaldana@unizar.es>
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 D8F1C12DC75 for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:47:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.236
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.236 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 9U4uOeD5K-M3 for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vortiz.unizar.es (vortiz.unizar.es [155.210.11.189]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F5F412D5B8 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from arazas.unizar.es ([155.210.11.67] helo=mail.unizar.es) by vortiz.unizar.es with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <jsaldana@unizar.es>) id 1afs8e-0003MM-MN for gaia@irtf.org; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:48:08 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:45:59 +0100
From: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: gaia@irtf.org
Organization: University of Zaragoza
In-Reply-To: <56E8294E.6040807@article19.org>
References: <003101d17914$247b6b30$6d724190$@unizar.es> <56E8294E.6040807@article19.org>
Message-ID: <dbab74be0feebf5f4fef2951d1a1934e@unizar.es>
X-Sender: jsaldana@unizar.es
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/0.8.5
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/5-Gbga5uWNDIzJ2oYky3Pj99abw>
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: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:47:41 -0000
Thanks a lot, Niels. We will upload a new version incorporating your points. Thank you very much, Jose El 2016-03-15 16:25, Niels ten Oever escribió: > 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. > > 2. > Add a reference to GAIA charter (source of the quote I presume) in the > introduction. > > 3. > 1.1, 2nd bullet, 's are used' can be removed > > 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. > > 5. > Chapter 3. Scenarios where Alternative Networks are deployed > Replace 'in' in first sentence with 'on' > > 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. > > Hope this helps. > > 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 03/08/2016 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>; gaia@irtf.org >>> CC: 'Javier Simó' <javier.simo@urjc.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-network- >> 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>; >>>>>>>> draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network- deployments@ietf.org CC: >>>>>>>> gaia <gaia@irtf.org>; 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-deploy >> 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-alternative-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/IRSGReviewLog >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >> 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
- Re: [gaia] [irsg] Review required: draft-irtf-gai… Mat Ford
- Re: [gaia] [irsg] Review required: draft-irtf-gai… Mat Ford
- Re: [gaia] [irsg] Review required: draft-irtf-gai… Jose Saldana
- Re: [gaia] [irsg] Review required: draft-irtf-gai… Javier Simó
- Re: [gaia] [irsg] Review required: draft-irtf-gai… Jose Saldana
- Re: [gaia] [irsg] Review required: draft-irtf-gai… Niels ten Oever
- [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternati… Jose Saldana
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Aldebaro Klautau
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Jose Saldana
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Niels ten Oever
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Niels ten Oever
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Jose Saldana
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Santiago Ferreira
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Jose Saldana
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Niels ten Oever
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Jose Saldana
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Aaron Kaplan
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Aaron Kaplan
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Eggert, Lars
- Re: [gaia] [irsg] Review required: draft-irtf-gai… Arjuna Sathiaseelan
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Jose Saldana
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Vesna Manojlovic
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Jose Saldana
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… future
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… future
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Jose Saldana
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Nicolás Echániz
- [gaia] Fwd: RE: Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-… future
- Re: [gaia] Fwd: RE: Review required: draft-irtf-g… Mitar
- Re: [gaia] Fwd: RE: Review required: draft-irtf-g… future
- Re: [gaia] Fwd: RE: Review required: draft-irtf-g… Mitar
- Re: [gaia] Fwd: RE: Review required: draft-irtf-g… Jose Saldana