Re: [gaia] draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Mitar review, question #4. Classification

["Jose Saldana" <[e-mail]>]

> 
> >> If we extend also goals and motivation with additional options, then
> >> I think this is closer to be able to cover community networks.
> >>
> >> > The list of motivations has been expanded as you suggested.
> >>
> >> Then we should probably add them as used by community networks.
> >
> > I don't understand the previous sentence. What does "them" refer to? Sorry.
> 
> We expanded the category of motivations with new options. Now in the table at the
> beginning of the "community networks" section we should add those new options to
> the list of motivations people behind community networks have. There is little use of
> expanding the list of possible options if we then do not use them in tables for each
> type of alternative networks. Probably also some other alternative networks fall into
> one of those extra options.

Understood, thanks.

Let's see what people say about this: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg01245.html


> 
> >> https://wiki.freebsd.org/WifiTDMA
> >
> > Thanks. I would not include the freebsd link, as it is not working yet.
> 
> To my understanding it is working. Where have you seen that it is not?
> There are no known issues and there is some future work planned.
> 
> >    o  Wi-Fi modified for long distances (WiLD), either with CSMA/CA or
> >       with an alternative TDMA MAC [Simo_b].
> 
> Also use of non-standard ad-hoc is used in some community networks.
> Non-standard because N protocol does not support it. Or non-standard because
> beacons are for example disabled.

I think this is being discussed here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg01240.html

Thanks,

Jose

> 
> 
> Mitar
> 
> --
> http://mitar.tnode.com/
> https://twitter.com/mitar_m