Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Aldebaro's suggestion #2
"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Mon, 28 March 2016 11:18 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 8882712D88B for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 04:18:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.614
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.614 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, TRACKER_ID=1.306, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 3BoXk5tcdtWe for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 04:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ortiz.unizar.es (ortiz.unizar.es [155.210.1.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7AE0F12D8A6 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 04:17:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jsaldanalaptop (116.red-176-86-233.dynamicip.rima-tde.net [176.86.233.116]) (authenticated bits=0) by ortiz.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u2SBHRD1005980; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:17:28 +0200
From: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: 'Aldebaro Klautau' <a.klautau@ieee.org>, gaia@irtf.org
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:17:32 +0200
Message-ID: <034801d188e3$6c8c68f0$45a53ad0$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0349_01D188F4.301C64E0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AdGI42mBJ1KoWYmvRVKLFQxVwiWm8A==
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/C8QKS0IYQZvUs_LQCHZtRGi06nE>
Subject: Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Aldebaro's suggestion #2
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: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 11:18:02 -0000
Suggestion #2 Current version: The standards used in the vast majority of Alternative Networks come from the IEEE Standard Association's IEEE 802 Working Group. Standards developed by other international entities can also be used, as e.g. the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). Suggestion: The standards used in the vast majority of Alternative Networks come from the IEEE Standard Association's IEEE 802 Working Group. Standards developed by other international entities are also used, as e.g. the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) and 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP). [JS] Fully agree. Jose De: gaia [mailto:gaia-bounces@irtf.org] En nombre de Aldebaro Klautau Enviado el: viernes, 11 de marzo de 2016 11:20 Para: gaia@irtf.org Asunto: Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments Hello, I have recently joined the GAIA group and found draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-03.txt very interesting. I am not sure if this is the proper way of contributing, but I am sending attached some suggestions. PS: Our university (UFPA) has partnership with Brazilian institutions to provide telephony services and Internet via GPRS to underserved (and very poor) communities in the Amazon forest. We are then biased towards using GSM due e.g. to the low cost of the handsets. Regards, Aldebaro -- ========================== Aldebaro Klautau www.laps.ufpa.br <http://www.laps.ufpa.br> - www.lasse.ufpa.br <http://www.lasse.ufpa.br> Phone: +55 (91) 3201-7674 Address: UFPA - PPGEE - LaPS - CP: 8619 66075.110 - Belem - Para - Brazil On 08/03/2016 05:25, 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 <mailto:jsaldana@unizar.es> <jsaldana@unizar.es>; gaia@irtf.org <mailto:gaia@irtf.org> CC: 'Javier Simó' <mailto:javier.simo@urjc.es> <javier.simo@urjc.es>; irsg@irtf.org <mailto:irsg@irtf.org> Asunto: Re: [gaia] [irsg] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network- deployments -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 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 didnt start as a community effort. On the draft, what is the main purpose? Im 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, its not scoped to be 100s of pages, but more can we define what we mean as Alternative Networks, and then provide examples. Lixias 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 <mailto: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 <mailto:niels@article19.org> <niels@article19.org>; draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network- deployments@ietf.org <mailto:deployments@ietf.org> CC: gaia <mailto:gaia@irtf.org> <gaia@irtf.org>; Internet Research Steering Group <mailto:irsg@irtf.org> <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 lets keep that on gaia@irtf.org <mailto:gaia@irtf.org> . Mat On 30 Jan 2016, at 23:35, Niels ten Oever <mailto:niels@article19.org> <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 <http://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 <http://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 Im 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 <mailto:gaia@irtf.org> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia _______________________________________________ gaia mailing list gaia@irtf.org <mailto:gaia@irtf.org> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia -- --------------------------------------------------- Fco. Javier Simó Reigadas <mailto:javier.simo@urjc.es> <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 <mailto:gaia@irtf.org> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWsOMwAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjp0igIAI0GkDWZmcvgKSujx+tPhl hg 3n4Zmrqbc1Ez8kBVbHT2iv15D2FccCOJy9FILZ7sIyk1VWtEyG4zfKU/wYBQQay z XRgH+6Ix5ovhinx8dcH3eQMdq8OLWf43Oe4I3E2Kc5F/Pq5O12Lhb8NMa74ZBW VN KxZGo2xyeVsA4jjUSfXiiq2xAyaM7SEFDMUFSjV4qOsJUChmXSaRx27z+FpiCm 5G KGYG3w5lvBs5vsnqHhzZkpsW706NFZDuJqpIX3yNmzNUCQBhkHmhPiMsXQBu eVlf mN6RVGIDDzgV744ktUvG2zTNa+YTJb382kelp7xsDq7yFPGTFkaFV/bVImMQLf M= =eGYs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ gaia mailing list gaia@irtf.org <mailto:gaia@irtf.org> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia _______________________________________________ gaia mailing list gaia@irtf.org <mailto:gaia@irtf.org> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Jose Saldana