Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments
"Jose Saldana" <jsaldana@unizar.es> Fri, 18 March 2016 15:12 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 55A5512D5A1; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:12:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 vKk1SkZvlMl0; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:12:53 -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 6955A12D563; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 08:12:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jsaldanalaptop (116.Red-176-86-233.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [176.86.233.116]) (authenticated bits=0) by isuela.unizar.es (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u2IFCdc6025634; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:12:40 +0100
From: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es>
To: 'Niels ten Oever' <niels@article19.org>
References: <003101d17914$247b6b30$6d724190$@unizar.es> <56E8294E.6040807@article19.org> <a1bda1d46bf7fa6c87ea9c678823b38a@unizar.es> <56EC0A21.8010009@article19.org>
In-Reply-To: <56EC0A21.8010009@article19.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:12:50 +0100
Message-ID: <00c301d18128$a40e71a0$ec2b54e0$@unizar.es>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQG1qwcHXgode/VwUy5vSWYfraoL5QGdC4EgAj7NKokCHKqih59nNshw
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/pSRJHffychC4gCjTPg4BFBjBKIg>
Cc: gaia@irtf.org, 'Matthew Ford' <ford@isoc.org>, 'Internet Research Steering Group' <irsg@irtf.org>
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: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 15:12:58 -0000
The new version of the draft has just been submitted. Best regards and thanks a lot! Jose > -----Mensaje original----- > De: gaia [mailto:gaia-bounces@irtf.org] En nombre de Niels ten Oever > Enviado el: viernes, 18 de marzo de 2016 15:01 > Para: Jose Saldana <jsaldana@unizar.es> > CC: gaia@irtf.org; Internet Research Steering Group <irsg@irtf.org> > Asunto: Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network- > deployments > > Thanks for the quick turnaround Jose. This all looks great to me. > > 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 03/18/2016 11:53 AM, Jose Saldana wrote: > > Hello Niels. > > > > I have added new versions of the sentences inline, starting with [JS]. > > > >> 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. > > > > [JS] 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. They employ architectures and > > topologies different from those of mainstream networks, and rely > > on alternative business models. > >> > >> 2. > >> Add a reference to GAIA charter (source of the quote I presume) in > >> the introduction. > > > > [JS] added: > > [GAIA] Internet Research Task Force, IRTF., "Charter: Global > > Access to the Internet for All Research Group GAIA", > > available at https://irtf.org/gaia , 2016. > > > >> > >> 3. > >> 1.1, 2nd bullet, 's are used' can be removed > > > > > > [JS] > > Top-down control of the network and centralized approach. > > > >> > >> 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. > > > > [JS] New versions of different paragraphs: > > > > [JS] In section 2: > > > > o "Global north" and "global south": Although there is no consensus > > on the terms to be used when talking about the different > > development level of countries, we will employ the term "global > > south" to refer to nations with a relatively lower standard of > > living. This distinction is normally intended to reflect basic > > economic country conditions. In common practice, Japan in Asia, > > Canada and the United States in northern America, Australia and > > New Zealand in Oceania, and Europe are considered "developed" > > regions or areas [UN], so we will employ the term "global north" > > when talking about them. > > > > [JS] In section 3: > > Different studies have reported that as much as 60% of the people in > > the planet do not have Internet connectivity [Sprague], > > [InternetStats]. In addition, those unconnected are unevenly > > distributed: only 31 percent of the population in "global south" > > countries had access in 2014, against 80 percent in "global north" > > countries [WorldBank2016]. This is one of the reasons behind the > > inclusion of the objective of providing "significantly increase > > access to ICT and strive to provide universal and affordable access > > to internet in LDCs by 2020," as one of the targets in the > > Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [SDG], considered as a part of > > "Goal 9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and > > sustainable industrialization and foster innovation." > > > > For the purpose of this document, a distinction between "global > > north" and "global south" zones is made, highlighting the factors > > related to ICT (Information and Communication Technologies), which > > can be quantified in terms of: > > > > (...) > > > > Some Alternative Networks have been deployed in underserved areas, > > where citizens may be compelled to take a more active part in the > > design and implementation of ICT solutions. However, Alternative > > Networks are also present in some "global north" countries, being > > built as an alternative to commercial ones managed by mainstream > > network operators. > > > > > > [JS] 3.1. Urban vs. Rural Areas > > > > The differences presented in the previous section are not only > > present between countries, but within them too. This is especially > > the case for rural inhabitants, who represent approximately 55% of > > the world's population [IFAD2011], 78% of them in "global south" > > countries [ITU2011]. According to the World Bank, adoption gaps > > "between rural and urban populations are falling for mobile phones > > but increasing for the internet" [WorldBank2016]. > > > > > > [JS] 4.5. Typical scenarios > > > > The scenarios where Alternative Networks are usually deployed can be > > classified as: > > > > o Urban / Rural areas. > > > > o "Global north" / "Global south" countries. > > > > > > [JS] 5.3. Shared infrastructure model > > > > +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ > > | Commercial | shared: companies and users | > > | model/promoter | | > > +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ > > | Goals and | to eliminate a capital expenditures barrier (to | > > | motivation | operators); lower the operating expenses | > > | | (supported by the community); to extend coverage | > > | | to underserved areas | > > +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ > > | Administration | Non-centralized | > > +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ > > | Technologies | wireless in non-licensed bands, [WiLD] and/or | > > | | low-cost fiber, mobile femtocells | > > +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ > > | Typical | rural areas, and more particularly rural areas | > > | scenarios | in "global south" regions | > > > > +----------------+--------------------------------------------------+ > > > > [JS] 6.1. Wired > > > > In many ("global north" or "global south") countries it may happen > > that national service providers decline to provide connectivity to > > tiny and isolated villages. So in some cases the villagers have > > created their own optical fiber networks. This is the case in > > Lowenstedt in Germany [Lowenstedt], or some parts of Guifi.net > > [Cerda-Alabern]. > > > >> > >> 5. > >> Chapter 3. Scenarios where Alternative Networks are deployed Replace > >> 'in' in first sentence with 'on' > > > > [JS] done > > > >> > >> 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. > > > > [JS] This is the new version: > > > > In this context, the World Summit of the Information Society aimed at > > achieving "a people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented > > Information Society, where everyone can create, access, utilize and > > share information and knowledge. Therefore, enabling individuals, > > communities and people to achieve their full potential in promoting > > their sustainable development and improving their quality of life". > > It also called upon "governments, private sector, civil society and > > international organizations" to actively engage to work towards the > > bridging of the digital divide [WSIS]. > > > > [JS]: However, it seems that WSIS is still alive: > > https://www.itu.int/net4/wsis/forum/2016/ > > > >> > >> Hope this helps. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Niels > >> > >> > > > > [JS] I have also corrected some typos, as suggested by > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg01102.html > > > > [JS] I have also added a "may" in this paragraph: > > > > 7.1.2. Routing protocols > > > > As stated in previous sections, Alternative Networks are composed of > > possibly different layer 2 devices, resulting in a mesh of nodes. > > Connection between different nodes is not guaranteed and the link > > stability can vary strongly over time. To tackle this, some > > Alternative Networks use mesh network routing protocols while other > > networks use more traditional routing protocols. Some networks > > operate multiple routing protocols in parallel. For example, they > > *may* use a mesh protocol inside different islands and rely on > > traditional routing protocols to connect these islands. > > > > > > I attach the new version. I will upload it to the IETF web as soon as > > you are ok with these changes. > > > > Thanks again, > > > > Jose > > > >> > >> 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>; gaia@irtf.org > >>>> CC: 'Javier Simó' <javier.simo@urjc.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-net > >>>>>> work- > >>>>>> > >>> 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>; > >>>>>>>>> draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network- deployments@ietf.org CC: > >>>>>>>>> gaia <gaia@irtf.org>; 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-d > >>>>>>>>>> eploy > >>>>>>>>>> > >>> 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-alternativ > >>>>>>>>>>>> e-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/IRSGReviewL > >>>>>>>>>>> og > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>> 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 > >>>
- Re: [gaia] [irsg] Review required: draft-irtf-gai… Mat Ford
- Re: [gaia] [irsg] Review required: draft-irtf-gai… Mat Ford
- Re: [gaia] [irsg] Review required: draft-irtf-gai… Jose Saldana
- Re: [gaia] [irsg] Review required: draft-irtf-gai… Javier Simó
- Re: [gaia] [irsg] Review required: draft-irtf-gai… Jose Saldana
- Re: [gaia] [irsg] Review required: draft-irtf-gai… Niels ten Oever
- [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternati… Jose Saldana
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Aldebaro Klautau
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Jose Saldana
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Niels ten Oever
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Niels ten Oever
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Jose Saldana
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Santiago Ferreira
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Jose Saldana
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Niels ten Oever
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Jose Saldana
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Aaron Kaplan
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Aaron Kaplan
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Eggert, Lars
- Re: [gaia] [irsg] Review required: draft-irtf-gai… Arjuna Sathiaseelan
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Jose Saldana
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Vesna Manojlovic
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Jose Saldana
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… future
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… future
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Jose Saldana
- Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alter… Nicolás Echániz
- [gaia] Fwd: RE: Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-… future
- Re: [gaia] Fwd: RE: Review required: draft-irtf-g… Mitar
- Re: [gaia] Fwd: RE: Review required: draft-irtf-g… future
- Re: [gaia] Fwd: RE: Review required: draft-irtf-g… Mitar
- Re: [gaia] Fwd: RE: Review required: draft-irtf-g… Jose Saldana