Subject: [gaia] Comments on draft no. 6

From: Mitar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 18:09:27 -0700

Hi!

This is amazing improvement. Thanks everyone for all the work.

I read through the current draft and here are my comments.

===

In the introduction we are briefly listing various alternative
networks, I think we have to add cooperatives to the list as well now,
no? (In the paragraph which starts "The classification considers
several types of alternate deployments:")

===

About Digital Divide term description. I think one issue I have with
it is that it is saying that only lack of development means digital
divide. But what I have observed is that there is also a digital
divide inside otherwise developed environments. For example, a city
could have good Internet access, but very expensive, so many
inhabitants cannot afford it so there is a digital divide between them
and others. And in fact this becomes even more problematic once many
municipality services move online, then the digital divide becomes
even deeper. For example, there was a problem that some services
targeting populations at the edge of the society was available only
online. In this way the were moved even more to the edge. But from the
perspective of digital development this was a progressive thing, to
move things online.

I think this is important because at least in our community network we
realized this problem and are trying to address it by providing
Internet access to those who cannot afford it otherwise. And because
our environment provides good Internet access otherwise, it is easy to
share that connectivity with those in need.

So, a digital divide can exist and be even deeper in developed
countries. And alternative networks in those countries do try to
improve on it as well.

===

> However, the proliferation of Alternative Networks [Baig] has fuelled the creation of low-cost, low-consumption, low-complexity off-the-shelf wireless devices.  These devices can simplify the deployment and maintenance of alternative infrastructures in rural areas.

I am not sure if alternative networks fueled (BTW, a typo? fuelled?)
the creation of any off-the-shelf wireless devices. Maybe it should be
that "... alternative networks has been fueled by the creation ..."?

===

4.1.  Promoter

Didn't we discuss that promoter is renamed to "facilitator"?

Because promoting is really just a small segment of what one has to do
to for alternative network to exist.

===

I really like the purpose section now.

===

CAPEX - let's spell it out. I do not think this is so common term to
just use the abbreviation.

===

> Low-cost optical fiber systems are used to connect households in some villages.

I think we should not limit that only to villages. We should mention
it, but I think there is nothing inherit in it to be used only in
villages.

We also use optical systems in wlan slovenija network in cities:

http://irnas.eu/koruza/2016/04/14/wireless-optical-test-network-koruza

===

> rural electric cooperative

Shouldn't this be simply a "rural utility cooperative"?

===

> Local wikis (e.g. https://localwiki.org).

This software was not specifically created for alternative networks,
but it can provide useful source of information when supplied through
an alternative network (so for community portals inside alternative
networks).

===

> Some "micro-ISPs" may use the network as a backhaul for providing Internet access, setting up VPNs from the client to a machine with Internet access.

Many community networks use VPN as well to connect multiple disjoint
parts of their networks together. In wlan slovenija every node
establishes a VPN tunnel as well. I know that few other networks are
doing the same.

In fact we had to develop our own VPN solution to make this happen well:

https://github.com/wlanslovenija/tunneldigger

(Because of resource limitations of simple of-the-shelf devices.)

===

Overall, I really like current version. It is a really good work. The
comments above are really just small comments.

Mitar

-- 
http://mitar.tnode.com/
https://twitter.com/mitar_m

---

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 10:40:53 +0200

Hi, Mitar.

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: gaia [mailto:[email-masked]] En nombre de Mitar
> Enviado el: domingo, 22 de mayo de 2016 3:09
> Para: gaia <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: [gaia] Comments on draft no. 6
> 
> Hi!
> 

Thanks also to you for your comments and valuable input.

> I read through the current draft and here are my comments.

I think now we should wait till the end of the RG Last Call (this Friday),
and then follow the instructions of the Chairs in order to introduce these
improvements.
> 
> ===
> 
> In the introduction we are briefly listing various alternative networks, I
think we have
> to add cooperatives to the list as well now, no? (In the paragraph which
starts "The
> classification considers several types of alternate deployments:")
> 
> ===
> 
> About Digital Divide term description. I think one issue I have with it is
that it is
> saying that only lack of development means digital divide. But what I have
observed
> is that there is also a digital divide inside otherwise developed
environments. For
> example, a city could have good Internet access, but very expensive, so
many
> inhabitants cannot afford it so there is a digital divide between them and
others. And
> in fact this becomes even more problematic once many municipality services
move
> online, then the digital divide becomes even deeper. For example, there
was a
> problem that some services targeting populations at the edge of the
society was
> available only online. In this way the were moved even more to the edge.
But from
> the perspective of digital development this was a progressive thing, to
move things
> online.
realized this
> problem and are trying to address it by providing Internet access to those
who
> cannot afford it otherwise. And because our environment provides good
Internet
> access otherwise, it is easy to share that connectivity with those in
need.
> 
> So, a digital divide can exist and be even deeper in developed countries.
And
> alternative networks in those countries do try to improve on it as well.
> 
> ===
> 
> > However, the proliferation of Alternative Networks [Baig] has fuelled
the creation
> of low-cost, low-consumption, low-complexity off-the-shelf wireless
devices.  These
> devices can simplify the deployment and maintenance of alternative
infrastructures
> in rural areas.
> 
> I am not sure if alternative networks fueled (BTW, a typo? fuelled?) the
creation of
> any off-the-shelf wireless devices. Maybe it should be that "...
alternative networks
> has been fueled by the creation ..."?
> 
> ===
> 
> 4.1.  Promoter
> 
> Because promoting is really just a small segment of what one has to do to
for
> alternative network to exist.
> 
> ===
> 
> CAPEX - let's spell it out. I do not think this is so common term to just
use the
> abbreviation.
> I think we should not limit that only to villages. We should mention it,
but I think there
> is nothing inherit in it to be used only in villages.
> 
> This software was not specifically created for alternative networks, but
it can
> provide useful source of information when supplied through an alternative
network
> (so for community portals inside alternative networks).
> 
> ===
> 
> > Some "micro-ISPs" may use the network as a backhaul for providing
Internet
> access, setting up VPNs from the client to a machine with Internet access.
> 
> Many community networks use VPN as well to connect multiple disjoint parts
of
> their networks together. In wlan slovenija every node establishes a VPN
tunnel as
> well. I know that few other networks are doing the same.
> 
comments above
> are really just small comments.

Thanks!

Jose
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia

---

From: "Jose Saldana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 19:52:46 +0200

Hi Mitar and all.

The RG Last call finished yesterday, so let's discuss these things in order
to build a new version as soon as possible, in order to keep on advancing.

> This is amazing improvement. Thanks everyone for all the work.

Thanks to you also!
think we have
starts "The
> classification considers several types of alternate deployments:")

You are right. This would be the last paragraph of the abstract:

      The classification considers models such as Community Networks, 
      Wireless Internet Service Providers
      (WISPs), networks owned by individuals but leased out to network
      operators who use them as a low-cost medium to reach the
      underserved population, networks that provide
      connectivity by sharing wireless resources of the users and rural
      utility cooperatives.

And the paragraph of the Intro you are talking about:

      The classification considers several types of alternate
      deployments: Community Networks are self-organized networks 
      wholly owned by the community; networks 
      acting as Wireless Internet Service Providers
      (WISPs); networks owned by individuals but leased out to network
      operators who use such networks as a low cost medium to reach the
      underserved population; networks that provide
      connectivity by sharing wireless resources of the users; and 
      finally there are some rural utility cooperatives also connecting
      their members to the Internet.
that it is
observed
environments. For
many
others. And
move
was a
society was
But from
move things
realized this
who
Internet
need.
And
> alternative networks in those countries do try to improve on it as well.

What about this? I have added a sentence at the end.

        The "Digital Divide". The following dimensions are considered to be
meaningful 
        when measuring the digital development state of a country:
infrastructures (availability and
        affordability), Information and Communications Technology (ICT)
        sector (human capital and technological industry), digital literacy,
        legal and regulatory framework and, content and services. A lack of
        digital development in one or more of these dimensions is what has
        been referred as the "Digital Divide" [Norris].
        It should be noted that this "Divide" is not only present between
        different countries, but between zones of the same country, despite
        its degree of development.
the creation
devices.  These
infrastructures
creation of
alternative networks
> has been fueled by the creation ..."?

Well, perhaps both things have happened at the same time. Perhaps some
wireless devices have been "fueled" by ANs (e.g. MikroTik routers are very
popular in CNs). What about this?

        Some of these factors challenge the stability of Alternative
Networks and
        the services they provide: scarcity of spectrum, 
        scale, and heterogeneity of devices. However, the proliferation 
        of Alternative Networks [Baig] together with the raising of
low-cost, 
        low-consumption, low-complexity off-the-shelf wireless devices, have
allowed 
        and simplified the deployment and maintenance of alternative
infrastructures 
        in rural areas.

for
> alternative network to exist.

Well, I asked in the list
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg01248.html, but no one
answered.

I am asking again in other thread, for clarity.
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gaia/current/msg01326.html

use the
> abbreviation.

Ok. Done.
but I think there
> http://irnas.eu/koruza/2016/04/14/wireless-optical-test-network-koruza
Ok. Let´s say:

Low-cost optical fiber systems are also used to connect households in
different places. 
> Shouldn't this be simply a "rural utility cooperative"?

Ok. We can say change the term, and explain in the text that this is usually
done by electric cooperatives. In fact, the current text already says that.

This would be the new version.

5.5.  Rural utility cooperatives

   +----------------------+--------------------------------------------+
   | Promoter             | rural utility cooperative                  |
   +----------------------+--------------------------------------------+
   | Purpose              | to serve underserved areas; to reduce      |
   |                      | capital expenditures in Internet access    |
   +----------------------+--------------------------------------------+
   | Governance and       | the cooperative partners with an ISP who   |
   | sustainability model | manages the network                        |
   +----------------------+--------------------------------------------+
   | Technologies         | wired (fiber) and wireless                 |
   | employed             |                                            |
   +----------------------+--------------------------------------------+
   | Typical scenarios    | rural                                      |
   +----------------------+--------------------------------------------+

       Table 5: Rural utility cooperatives' characteristics summary

   A utility cooperative is a type of cooperative that delivers a public
   utility to its members.  For example, in the United States, rural
   electric cooperatives have provided electric service starting in the
   1930s, especially in areas where investor-owned utility would not
   provide service, believing there would be insufficient revenue to
   justify the capital expenditures required.  Similarly, in many
   regions with low population density, traditional Internet services
   providers such as telephone companies or cable TV companies are
   either not providing service at all or only offer low-speed DSL
   service.  Some rural electric cooperatives started installing fiber
   optic lines to run their smart grid applications, but they found they
   could provide fiber-based broadband to their members at little
   additional cost [Cash].  In some of these cases, rural electric
   cooperatives have partnered with local ISPs to provide Internet
   connection to their members [Carlson].  More information about these
   utilities and their management can be found in [NewMexico] and
   [Mitchell].
it can
network
> (so for community portals inside alternative networks).
What about this?

        Other services (e.g. Local wikis as https://localwiki.org used in
        community portals) can also provide useful information when supplied

        through an alternative network, although they were not specifically 
        created for them.
Internet
of
tunnel as
> (Because of resource limitations of simple of-the-shelf devices.)

Ok, thanks. This would be the new version of the sub-section:

7.3.1.  Use of VPNs

   Some "micro-ISPs" may use the network as a backhaul for providing
   Internet access, setting up VPNs from the client to a machine with
   Internet access.

   Many community networks also use VPNs to connect multiple disjoint
   parts of their networks together.  In some others, every node
   establishes a VPN tunnel as well.
comments above
> are really just small comments.
Thanks a lot!

Jose

---

From: Mitar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 May 2016 07:05:35 +0200

Hi!

I like all your suggestions. I really like how it is converging.

Mitar