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

Santiago Ferreira <santiago.ferreira@gmail.com> Tue, 15 March 2016 17:14 UTC

Return-Path: <santiago.ferreira@gmail.com>
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 6A21A12D663 for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 10:14:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 EOwuBdMd7iFd for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 10:14:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x22e.google.com (mail-vk0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::22e]) (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 6806D12D5BD for <gaia@irtf.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 10:14:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id c3so29225732vkb.3 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 10:14:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=1+MqC+e2AbkrUZkD2KfmwvIviSSN08vUkM8Ieqy2XJo=; b=DdxmdUmga4YYR/TdkxwHru3qM/EOkgQoGCK/qIo/EF/i2b17pTqIZed4lweJqv3udT 4IxK7IlW0XPwdAqWKUS+RRqqBJOfvWYZwSOyyROZ4vg0IQ/5XNsgQGOtXIfHgHtK6F27 jjSDt2/0Kd/lVAnpZxLz3IRPjVXkoVy5Gihp4ByHagBAHo2MNG6p8tk3/gYJFWr2iam2 gssQo6vnSTxegwvpyN8/P/U3Bv3Vm+pRHMN/FuKXHT7XC4kz0mR1KEbs4URdtDvB0e5w FCABcB2ZW8j8l9WeFw52HEFidFXekGt7zugdLNFmk7eNoIf9y5AfMR1oJyaK/FubxXfh mZKA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=1+MqC+e2AbkrUZkD2KfmwvIviSSN08vUkM8Ieqy2XJo=; b=Vy7GkmpbbbJ1HOBwxngvC7+DZDmAzq4xA6s0Htl5+C1nnrbCkiDorcy9utBP9v2ER+ y32CK0h6eLZK6hFiwwvJqveiMCRpFJwcmPEg1E+m8aqnSmdUn7mlabzgO3YDPuhBclBa 2cErZ0FAyqjtW2JfXrZb2BfSkf9ef6ItntAAdOLnOx7/GYnEjX3PPv19mQ7Jq2ixlOmo IO6U6kLgWJNj7chaKQ/BarpMIFKej9uCb0ux8q3pjTEHjFbp3TY9KG2mnOGUsyPSD2GO 9uMBzepUICJ8Ajlbq5+e8DGzy/tiJtv+pE7B8zMXd7lrXJTjDQaC4BK5VPrLUbCRsprz ddOw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJKbfXqzhGxkWv04Y+hcys+EOevyq8f9h4y4zmTiqKEDW27SdeNojduQFmi3JdesUV+9TRrXAVt70r2gYA==
X-Received: by 10.31.155.131 with SMTP id d125mr28143351vke.146.1458062042361; Tue, 15 Mar 2016 10:14:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <003101d17914$247b6b30$6d724190$@unizar.es> <56E8294E.6040807@article19.org> <dbab74be0feebf5f4fef2951d1a1934e@unizar.es>
In-Reply-To: <dbab74be0feebf5f4fef2951d1a1934e@unizar.es>
From: Santiago Ferreira <santiago.ferreira@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:13:52 +0000
Message-ID: <CAHdwBF7YNrOsP7e7YSjNWE0bM_aEhe2yS9w95RuUCNywghdOUQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>, gaia@irtf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d391c18769e052e1986a6
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/U47lnWyuhoMmkRzUVt-e0StmN5c>
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 17:14:08 -0000

;)

Thanks

See you in Bs As

Santiago
El El mar, 15 de mar. de 2016 a las 1:47 p.m., Jose Saldana <
jsaldana@unizar.es> escribió:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> gaia@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>