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>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-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>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-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