Re: [gaia] New Version Notification for draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks-02.txt. Sharper identification

[Javier Simó <[e-mail]>]

El 10/02/15 a las #4, Maria Uden escribió:
>
> Yes, and the technical details can be presented by themselves, in even 
> more detail, without referring to the socio-technical context?
>
In my humble point of view,
     - yes, technical details can be presented by themselves without 
referring to the context, provided that later in the document technology 
is going to be crossed in the matrix with the different alternative 
networks together with other vertical descriptors.

     - however, i think that we should not go very deep into the details 
in describing technologies. They are described either in standards or in 
papers that can be referenced. Techniques that are well known and that 
are explained in books or articles should also be cited. We should be 
able to summarize those things, with appropriate references, instead of 
extending the document with them unnecessarily. The accent of the 
document should not be in the technologies, but in the definition of the 
alternative networks with the discussion of all the relevant 
characteristics (socio-technical context, technologies used, bussiness 
model, ...)

Best
Javier

> A test bed can have different underlying reasons, for instance be 
> thought of as a way to raise funding for a community network.
>
> Maria
>
> *From:*Henning G Schulzrinne [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* den 10 februari 2015 15:30
> *To:* Maria Uden
> *Cc:* Jose Saldana; [e-mail]; Matthew Ford
> *Subject:* Re: [gaia] New Version Notification for 
> draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks-02.txt. Sharper identification
>
> Another approach is to look at the underlying motivation for these 
> approaches, i.e., addressing deployment and usage hurdles:
>
> * reducing initial capital expenditures (for the network and the end 
> user, or both)
>
> * providing additional sources of capital (beyond the traditional 
> carrier-based financing)
>
> * reducing on-going operational costs (such as backhaul or network 
> administration)
>
> * leveraging expertise
>
> * reducing hurdles to adoption (digital literacy; literacy, in 
> general; relevance, etc.)
>
> Most of the examples given, except the testbed, seem to fall into one 
> or more of these categories. Given that there are likely more 
> solutions than the examples discussed, it might be helpful to focus on 
> the goals, as that then also allows to evaluate whether and to what 
> extent a solution meets the goal. Otherwise, it's just technology for 
> coolness' sake.
>
> Henning
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:24 AM, Maria Uden <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> The classification is interesting as information but, is it not only 
> examples, after all? Or, what is the purpose? An analogy: My 
> experience as teacher is that the more detailed descriptions the more 
> the students will ask – because each detail opens questions. Like the 
> fractals one sees in these nice maths/science pictures. They will feel 
> insecure and instead of getting to action themselves wonder if they 
> can really do it, as it is so defined into details what “it shall be 
> about”.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Maria
>
> *From:*gaia [mailto:[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>] *On Behalf Of *Jose Saldana
> *Sent:* den 9 februari 2015 16:27
> *To:* [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>; 'Matthew Ford'
> *Subject:* Re: [gaia] New Version Notification for 
> draft-manyfolks-gaia-community-networks-02.txt. Sharper identification
>
> Hi all,
>
> Mat has sent this suggestion:
>
> > A general observation: I find the taxonomical aspect a bit lacking at present. I would
>
> > like to have a sharper identification of the characteristics of identified alternative
>
> > network types that distinguishes them. Is it the commercial model? Is it the
>
> > centralisation or decentralisation of network management? The descriptions are fine
>
> > as far as they go, but if there's something unique about the different types that
>
> > clearly distinguishes them it would help to call that out better. Maybe a matrix of the
>
> > various identified types of network and some of the important characteristics would
>
> > be appropriate.
>
> This is the current classification (section 2):
>
>      2.1.  Community Networks
>
>        2.1.1.  Free Networks
>
>      2.2.  Wireless Internet Service Providers WISPs
>
>      2.3.  Shared infrastructure model
>
>      2.4.  Crowdshared approaches, led by the people and third party 
> stakeholders
>
>      2.5.  Testbeds for research purposes
>
> Mat, are you suggesting to include a table like this?:
>
>              | Commercial model | centralization | technologies | 
> typical   |
>
>              | |                |              | scenarios |
>
> +------------------+----------------+--------------+-----------+
>
> CNs          | |                |              |           |
>
> WISPx        | |                |              |           |
>
> Shared inf   | |                |              |           |
>
> Crowdshared  | |                |              |           |
>
> Testbeds     | |                |              |           |
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia

-- 

---------------------------------------------------
Fco. Javier Simó Reigadas <[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