Re: [gaia] Comments on draft no. 6
"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Sat, 28 May 2016 17:52 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 8182212D121 for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 May 2016 10:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 tYamHpvnfjOR for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 May 2016 10:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ortiz.unizar.es (ortiz.unizar.es [155.210.1.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30C9E12D114 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Sat, 28 May 2016 10:52:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jsaldanalaptop (172.red-83-52-178.dynamicip.rima-tde.net [83.52.178.172]) (authenticated bits=0) by ortiz.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u4SHqcTQ030765; Sat, 28 May 2016 19:52:39 +0200
From: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: 'Mitar' <mmitar@gmail.com>, 'gaia' <gaia@irtf.org>
References: <CAKLmikMszu=RyRrzoU+zi6CpRw-9ar5CCttyN70ehg3WEaJkLg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKLmikMszu=RyRrzoU+zi6CpRw-9ar5CCttyN70ehg3WEaJkLg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 19:52:46 +0200
Message-ID: <002201d1b909$be3d07d0$3ab71770$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQJOmCI/V1lYn5cqtpTrIMT9ixHmQgIJa6MB
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/YJXR0012qI8HfPHcUi1j4ZuQtf0>
Subject: Re: [gaia] Comments on draft no. 6
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: Sat, 28 May 2016 17:52:50 -0000
Hi Mitar and all. The RG Last call finished yesterday, so let's discuss these things in order to build a new version as soon as possible, in order to keep on advancing. > -----Mensaje original----- > De: gaia [mailto:gaia-bounces@irtf.org] En nombre de Mitar > Enviado el: domingo, 22 de mayo de 2016 3:09 > Para: gaia <gaia@irtf.org> > Asunto: [gaia] Comments on draft no. 6 > > Hi! > > This is amazing improvement. Thanks everyone for all the work. Thanks to you also! > > I read through the current draft and here are my comments. > > === > > In the introduction we are briefly listing various alternative networks, I think we have > to add cooperatives to the list as well now, no? (In the paragraph which starts "The > classification considers several types of alternate deployments:") You are right. This would be the last paragraph of the abstract: The classification considers models such as Community Networks, Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs), networks owned by individuals but leased out to network operators who use them as a low-cost medium to reach the underserved population, networks that provide connectivity by sharing wireless resources of the users and rural utility cooperatives. And the paragraph of the Intro you are talking about: The classification considers several types of alternate deployments: Community Networks are self-organized networks wholly owned by the community; networks acting as Wireless Internet Service Providers (WISPs); networks owned by individuals but leased out to network operators who use such networks as a low cost medium to reach the underserved population; networks that provide connectivity by sharing wireless resources of the users; and finally there are some rural utility cooperatives also connecting their members to the Internet. > > === > > About Digital Divide term description. I think one issue I have with it is that it is > saying that only lack of development means digital divide. But what I have observed > is that there is also a digital divide inside otherwise developed environments. For > example, a city could have good Internet access, but very expensive, so many > inhabitants cannot afford it so there is a digital divide between them and others. And > in fact this becomes even more problematic once many municipality services move > online, then the digital divide becomes even deeper. For example, there was a > problem that some services targeting populations at the edge of the society was > available only online. In this way the were moved even more to the edge. But from > the perspective of digital development this was a progressive thing, to move things > online. > > I think this is important because at least in our community network we realized this > problem and are trying to address it by providing Internet access to those who > cannot afford it otherwise. And because our environment provides good Internet > access otherwise, it is easy to share that connectivity with those in need. > > So, a digital divide can exist and be even deeper in developed countries. And > alternative networks in those countries do try to improve on it as well. What about this? I have added a sentence at the end. The "Digital Divide". The following dimensions are considered to be meaningful when measuring the digital development state of a country: infrastructures (availability and affordability), Information and Communications Technology (ICT) sector (human capital and technological industry), digital literacy, legal and regulatory framework and, content and services. A lack of digital development in one or more of these dimensions is what has been referred as the "Digital Divide" [Norris]. It should be noted that this "Divide" is not only present between different countries, but between zones of the same country, despite its degree of development. > > === > > > However, the proliferation of Alternative Networks [Baig] has fuelled the creation > of low-cost, low-consumption, low-complexity off-the-shelf wireless devices. These > devices can simplify the deployment and maintenance of alternative infrastructures > in rural areas. > > I am not sure if alternative networks fueled (BTW, a typo? fuelled?) the creation of > any off-the-shelf wireless devices. Maybe it should be that "... alternative networks > has been fueled by the creation ..."? Well, perhaps both things have happened at the same time. Perhaps some wireless devices have been "fueled" by ANs (e.g. MikroTik routers are very popular in CNs). What about this? Some of these factors challenge the stability of Alternative Networks and the services they provide: scarcity of spectrum, scale, and heterogeneity of devices. However, the proliferation of Alternative Networks [Baig] together with the raising of low-cost, low-consumption, low-complexity off-the-shelf wireless devices, have allowed and simplified the deployment and maintenance of alternative infrastructures in rural areas. > > === > > 4.1. Promoter > > Didn't we discuss that promoter is renamed to "facilitator"? > > Because promoting is really just a small segment of what one has to do to for > alternative network to exist. Well, I asked in the list http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg01248.html, but no one answered. I am asking again in other thread, for clarity. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg01326.html > > === > > I really like the purpose section now. > > === > > CAPEX - let's spell it out. I do not think this is so common term to just use the > abbreviation. Ok. Done. > > === > > > Low-cost optical fiber systems are used to connect households in some villages. > > I think we should not limit that only to villages. We should mention it, but I think there > is nothing inherit in it to be used only in villages. > > We also use optical systems in wlan slovenija network in cities: > > http://irnas.eu/koruza/2016/04/14/wireless-optical-test-network-koruza > Ok. Let´s say: Low-cost optical fiber systems are also used to connect households in different places. > === > > > rural electric cooperative > > Shouldn't this be simply a "rural utility cooperative"? Ok. We can say change the term, and explain in the text that this is usually done by electric cooperatives. In fact, the current text already says that. This would be the new version. 5.5. Rural utility cooperatives +----------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | Promoter | rural utility cooperative | +----------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | Purpose | to serve underserved areas; to reduce | | | capital expenditures in Internet access | +----------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | Governance and | the cooperative partners with an ISP who | | sustainability model | manages the network | +----------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | Technologies | wired (fiber) and wireless | | employed | | +----------------------+--------------------------------------------+ | Typical scenarios | rural | +----------------------+--------------------------------------------+ Table 5: Rural utility cooperatives' characteristics summary A utility cooperative is a type of cooperative that delivers a public utility to its members. For example, in the United States, rural electric cooperatives have provided electric service starting in the 1930s, especially in areas where investor-owned utility would not provide service, believing there would be insufficient revenue to justify the capital expenditures required. Similarly, in many regions with low population density, traditional Internet services providers such as telephone companies or cable TV companies are either not providing service at all or only offer low-speed DSL service. Some rural electric cooperatives started installing fiber optic lines to run their smart grid applications, but they found they could provide fiber-based broadband to their members at little additional cost [Cash]. In some of these cases, rural electric cooperatives have partnered with local ISPs to provide Internet connection to their members [Carlson]. More information about these utilities and their management can be found in [NewMexico] and [Mitchell]. > > === > > > Local wikis (e.g. https://localwiki.org). > > This software was not specifically created for alternative networks, but it can > provide useful source of information when supplied through an alternative network > (so for community portals inside alternative networks). > What about this? Other services (e.g. Local wikis as https://localwiki.org used in community portals) can also provide useful information when supplied through an alternative network, although they were not specifically created for them. > === > > > Some "micro-ISPs" may use the network as a backhaul for providing Internet > access, setting up VPNs from the client to a machine with Internet access. > > Many community networks use VPN as well to connect multiple disjoint parts of > their networks together. In wlan slovenija every node establishes a VPN tunnel as > well. I know that few other networks are doing the same. > > In fact we had to develop our own VPN solution to make this happen well: > > https://github.com/wlanslovenija/tunneldigger > > (Because of resource limitations of simple of-the-shelf devices.) Ok, thanks. This would be the new version of the sub-section: 7.3.1. Use of VPNs Some "micro-ISPs" may use the network as a backhaul for providing Internet access, setting up VPNs from the client to a machine with Internet access. Many community networks also use VPNs to connect multiple disjoint parts of their networks together. In some others, every node establishes a VPN tunnel as well. > > === > > Overall, I really like current version. It is a really good work. The comments above > are really just small comments. > Thanks a lot! Jose > > Mitar > > -- > http://mitar.tnode.com/ > https://twitter.com/mitar_m > > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
- [gaia] Comments on draft no. 6 Mitar
- Re: [gaia] Comments on draft no. 6 Jose Saldana
- Re: [gaia] Comments on draft no. 6 Jose Saldana
- Re: [gaia] Comments on draft no. 6 Mitar