Re: [gaia] Current version of the Alternative Networks draft

"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Mon, 25 April 2016 16:05 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 7525A12D621 for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 09:05:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, 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 GOc7koCzi6x3 for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 09:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from isuela.unizar.es (isuela.unizar.es [155.210.1.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB1D712D1AB for <gaia@irtf.org>; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 09:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from usuarioPC (gtc1pc12.cps.unizar.es [155.210.158.17]) (authenticated bits=0) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u3PG5Gev022089; Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:05:16 +0200
From: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: 'panayotis antoniadis' <panayotis@nethood.org>
References: <571D4859.7060406@nethood.org> <571D67EA.6070300@nethood.org>
In-Reply-To: <571D67EA.6070300@nethood.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:05:35 +0200
Message-ID: <002b01d19f0c$4d7f3020$e87d9060$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQIl3eKY1k7Oe1uo5qQOZ/VBZ1H1JgIkU9NCnuEuo2A=
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/klbh0ibcniTJhN9XS6NO2PS4vP4>
Cc: gaia@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [gaia] Current version of the Alternative Networks draft
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, 25 Apr 2016 16:05:28 -0000

Hi, Panayotis,

First of all, thank you very much!

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: gaia [mailto:gaia-bounces@irtf.org] En nombre de panayotis antoniadis
> Enviado el: lunes, 25 de abril de 2016 2:42
> Para: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
> CC: gaia@irtf.org
> Asunto: Re: [gaia] Current version of the Alternative Networks draft
> 
> 
> Dear Jose, all
> 
> Here is the first part of my proposal for the improvement of the draft, up
to the end
> of Section 4 (classification criteria), trying to minimize the suggested
changes.

Thanks again!
> 
> I will send the second part a little later depending on how the first part
will be
> received :-)
> 
> 
> > Abstract
> 
> > This document presents a taxonomy of a set of "Alternative Network
> >    Deployments" emerged in the last decade with the aim of bringing
> >    Internet connectivity to people.
> 
> "or of providing a local communication infrastructure to serve various
> complementary needs and objectives"

Ok.

> 
> [If the draft would include alternative networks with other objectives
than providing
> Internet access this should be reflected in the abstract.]
> 
> > topologies different from those of mainstream networks, and rely on
> >    alternative business models.
> I would say "alternative business *and governance* models"

Ok.
> 
> 
> > 1. Introduction
> 
> > This term
> >    includes a set of network access models that have emerged in the last
> >    decade with the aim of providing Internet connection, following
> >    topological, architectural and business models that differ from the
> >    so-called "mainstream" ones,
> again, I would add "governance" models
> 
Ok.


> >
> >    o  Users in mainstream networks do not participate in the network
> >       design, deployment, operation and maintenance.
> 
> same here: add "governance"


Ok

> 
> 
> >
> > 2.  Terms used in this document
> >
> >    This document follows a multidisciplinary approach, considering the
> >    multidisciplinary nature of the Internet and the problems being
> >    addressed. Therefore, some concepts used in fields and disciplines
> >    different from networking are being used.
> 
> I would replace the above with the following [I don't think that it
> "follows a multidisciplinary approach" since there are not other
> disciplines really represented in the whole approach other than
> the clarification of the terminology]:
> 
> "Considering the central role that the Internet plays today in almost
> every aspect of our lives, this document touches on complex social,
> political, and economic issues. Some of the concepts and terminology
> used have been the subject of study of various disciplines outside the
> field of networking, and responsible for long debates whose resolution
> is out of the scope of this document. "

It sounds much better! Thanks.

I would only modify a bit the first sentence, in order to sound... a bit
less "enthusiastic":

Considering the role that the Internet currently plays in everyday life,
this document (...)

> 
> >
> >
> > 4.1.  Commercial model / promoter
> The "commercial model" does not sound like a classification variable
> and the list below is not a list of "commercial models" but different
> actors involved. The term "promoter" is also very vague. I would
> call this category simply "actors involved"

I agree that "Commercial model" can be removed, as we don't talk about it.

However, I see a difficulty if we call it "actors involved": in Section 5.4
we also talk about the "elements involved", which includes the actors
(https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments
-04#section-5.4). 

What we wanted to express in this category is who is "the entity behind the
network," i.e. the organization that promotes it. Can we use "developer"? I
must confess I like "promoter", but it can be discussed.

> 
> >
> >    The entity (or entities) or individuals promoting an Alternative
> >    Network can be:
> >
> >    o  A community of users.
> >
> >    o  A public stakeholder.
> >
> >    o  A private company.
> >
> >    o  Supporters of a crowdshared approach.
> >
> >    o  A community that already owns some infrastructure shares it with
> >       an operator, which uses it for backhauling purposes.
> >
> >    o  A research or academic entity.
> >
> >    The commercial model may have different implications regarding the
> >    ownership of the network equipment.  In some cases, each of the users
> >    of the community maintains the ownership over the equipment they have
> >    contributed, whereas in others there is an entity who owns the
> >    equipment, or at least a part of it.
> 
> I would replace the above with the following:
> 
> "The above actors could play different roles in the design, financing,
> deployment,
> governance, and promotion of an alternative network. For example,
> each of the members of a community network maintains the ownership over
the
> equipment they have contributed, whereas in others there is a single
entity,
> e.g., a private company who owns the equipment, or at least a part of it."

Ok. Perfect.

> 
> 
> >
Let us discuss about 4.2. in another thread (to separate different
questions).

> > 4.2.  Goals and motivation

(...) Text moved to another thread.


> 
> Best,
> 
> Panayotis.
> 
> 

Thanks a lot!

Jose
PS: If you agree, I would add your name in the acknowledgements section
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> gaia@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia