Re: [gaia] RG Last Call: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-02

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

Hi,
 
I also prefer “alternative” for two reasons:
 
- I think the word fits better with the networks we had in mind while
writing the draft:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg00984.html. And IMHO,
“alternative” is not the same as “complementary”.
 
- A more practical reason: today is the deadline established by Mat in order
to initiate IRSG review of the document. So if we rethink the title (and
probably the whole document), we may lose a lot of time. I must confess this
may sound too “practical”, but we already discussed a lot about the name to
be applied to these networks. See e.g. these threads:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg00227.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg00187.html
 
 
Thanks a lot!
 
Jose 
 
De: Andrés Arcia-Moret [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Enviado el: lunes, 14 de diciembre de 2015 14:51
Para: Javier Simó <[e-mail]>
CC: jsaldana <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Asunto: Re: [gaia] RG Last Call:
draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-02
 
Dear all,
 
I second Javier, voting "alternative". I think we’ve all agreed on the name
alternative networks because it (mainly) matches an independent willingness
of communities to get connected.. 
 
Cheers,
 
Andrés
 
 
On 14 Dec 2015, at 09:48, Javier Simó <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:
 
Hello

I don't like the word "complementary" for two reasons:

1) Something is complementary when there is no competition. But, why not? I
don't see why a community network cannot be deployed even if it is somehow
in competition with a "traditional" existing network deployed by an
operator.

2) The word "alternative" was used focusing on a number of criteria, not
only on the non-existance of a traditional network.

I vote "alternative".

Best regards

Javier


El 12/12/15 a las 17:03, jsaldana escribió:
Hi, Arjuna and all,
In my opinion, in order to clarify if "Alternative network" = "Complementary
network", we should answer two questions:
A) Are all "Alternative networks" also "Complementary networks"?
In the draft we are considering five kinds of networks:
1 Community Networks  
2 Wireless Internet Service Providers WISPs
3 Shared infrastructure model
4 Crowdshared approaches, led by the people and third party stakeholders  
5 Testbeds for research purposes
In the case of 4, it is clear that they are a "complement," since they share
the infrastructure and may reduce the CAPEX of the operator.
In the case of 1, they may become a "complement". Is this currently
happening?
I don't think that WISPs (2) usually share their infrastructure with
traditional operators. Am I right?
 
B) Are all "Complementary networks" also "Alternative networks"?
I think for example in the Wi-Fi network of an airport. This network can be
considered as "complementary", because it may be used to offload data from
the mobile network. But it is not "alternative" (it is not included in the
draft), because it may be promoted by a traditional operator (not by the
people), etc.
 
Any other ideas?
Thanks,
Jose
 
El 2015-12-12 13:45, Arjuna Sathiaseelan escribió:
Thanks Mat.  
 
I have been recently discussing with Roger from Guifi about whether
community networks should be termed as Alternative Networks or should it be
called Complimentary Networks considering that community networks could end
up sharing infrastructure with network operators who could see this as a
great opportunity to access the last mile without a CAPEX.
 
So is Alternative Networks the right terminology or should we have
Complimentary Networks?
 
Regards
 
On 1 December 2015 at 16:28, Mat Ford <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> wrote:
Folks,

I think it’s time we tried to conclude our work on
draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Jose detailed the changes
in the most recent update when he announced the update to the list, so I
won’t repeat those here. I have not seen any further discussion.

If you have any concerns or further comments regarding the content of this
document, please raise them on this mailing list by Tuesday December 15th. I
hope to initiate IRSG review of the document immediately thereafter.

Thanks,
Mat
_______________________________________________
gaia mailing list
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia



 
-- 
Arjuna Sathiaseelan 
Personal: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/
<http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/%7Eas2330/>  
N4D Lab: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~as2330/n4d
<http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/%7Eas2330/n4d> 
 
_______________________________________________
gaia mailing list
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia




_______________________________________________
gaia mailing list
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia



-- 
 
---------------------------------------------------
Fco. Javier Simó Reigadas  <mailto:[e-mail]>
<[e-mail]>
Subdirector de Ord. Docente
ETS de Ingeniería de Telecomunicación
D-204, Departamental III
Camino Del Molino, s/n - 28943 Fuenlabrada (Madrid)
Tel: [phone], Fax: [phone]
Web personal: http://www.tsc.urjc.es/~javier.simo
_______________________________________________
gaia mailing list
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
 
-
A/A/