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>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-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>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-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
> >>>