Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Aldebaro's suggestion #1

"Jose Saldana" <> Mon, 28 March 2016 11:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F0D012D899 for <>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 04:17:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.914
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.914 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, TRACKER_ID=1.306, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mMtHB9aLJNRF for <>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 04:17:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5763112D885 for <>; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 04:17:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from jsaldanalaptop ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id u2SBH86B024055; Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:17:08 +0200
From: "Jose Saldana" <>
To: "'Aldebaro Klautau'" <>, <>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:17:11 +0200
Message-ID: <033b01d188e3$631eed60$295cc820$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_033C_01D188F4.26AC9F60"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AdGI41kD6/iTNFw2TYO3x37tUx5W0w==
Content-Language: es
X-Mail-Scanned: Criba 2.0 + Clamd & Bogofilter
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [gaia] Review required: draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments. Aldebaro's suggestion #1
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 11:17:31 -0000

Hi, Aldebaro.


Thank you for your detailed comments. We already corrected the typos you
reported in 1).


Regarding the other suggestions, I will send 4 different e-mails, in order
to separate the discussion.

(I start my comments with [JS])


Suggestion #1


Current version:

   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

   use a mesh protocol inside different islands and use traditional

   routing protocols to connect these islands.



   While nowadays most alternative networks rely on unlicensed spectrum

   and WiFi, 3GPP technologies are also used and, IMHO, may play an

   important role in future. As you know, companies such as [Endaga]

   and [Range] are offering GSM solutions, and there are solid

   initiatives towards LTE / 4G [IEEE-SDR]. In this context, I think

   the assumption in the above paragraph that alternative networks

   necessarily use mesh should be avoided.




   [IEEE-SDR] Software-Defined Radio Will Let Communities Build Their

   Own 4G Networks, IEEE Spectrum 2015. Available at


[JS] Well, I don’t really think our paragraph says that alternative networks
necessarily use mesh. In fact, it says that “some Alternative Networks use
mesh network routing protocols while other networks use more traditional
routing protocols.” Nevertheless, we could perhaps improve that paragraph.
In addition, we could use the three references you provide, in order to
improve other sections (e.g.






De: gaia [] En nombre de Aldebaro Klautau
Enviado el: viernes, 11 de marzo de 2016 11:20
Asunto: Re: [gaia] Review required:



I have recently joined the GAIA group and found
draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-03.txt very
interesting. I am not sure if this is the proper way of contributing,
but I am sending attached some suggestions.

PS: Our university (UFPA) has partnership with Brazilian
institutions to provide telephony services and Internet via GPRS to
underserved (and very poor) communities in the Amazon forest. We are
then biased towards using GSM due e.g. to the low cost of the handsets.


Aldebaro Klautau <>  -
Phone: +55 (91) 3201-7674
UFPA - PPGEE - LaPS - CP: 8619
66075.110 - Belem - Para - Brazil


On 08/03/2016 05:25, 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:
- 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:
Thank you very much!

-----Mensaje original-----
De: gaia [] En nombre de Niels ten Oever
Enviado el: martes, 02 de febrero de 2016 18:11
Para: Jose Saldana  <> <>es>; <> 
CC: 'Javier Simó'  <> <>es>; <> 
Asunto: Re: [gaia] [irsg] Review required:
Hash: SHA256
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
"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
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.
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:



And we have also asked for volunteers for the "deployment

experiences" draft:
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,


-----Mensaje original----- De: gaia
[] En nombre de Javier Simó Enviado
el: lunes, 01 de febrero de 2016 14:09 Para:
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,

-----Mensaje original----- De: gaia
[] En nombre de Mat Ford Enviado
 el: lunes, 01 de febrero de 2016 13:27 Para: Niels ten
Oever  <> <>rg>;
<>  CC:
gaia  <> <>rg>; Internet Research Steering
 <> <> Asunto: Re: [gaia] [irsg] Review
draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network- deployments
Thanks very much for the detailed review Niels, it is
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 <> .

On 30 Jan 2016, at 23:35, Niels ten Oever
 <> <> wrote:
Dear all,
Please find my review of



nt s-03.txt below. This is my first IRSG review, so please bear with

I mostly followed 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


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.
-- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 <> 
PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2
636D 68E9
Niels ten Oever Head of Digital
Article 19 <> 
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





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



<draft-irtf-gaia-alternative-network-deployments-03 edit

_______________________________________________ gaia mailing
list <>

_______________________________________________ gaia mailing
list <>

--------------------------------------------------- Fco. Javier
Simó Reigadas  <> <>
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:
_______________________________________________ gaia mailing list <>


Version: GnuPG v2
gaia mailing list <>


gaia mailing list <>