Re: [mmox] Creating walled gardens considered harmful

[James Stallings II <[e-mail]>]

Getting  back to Morgaine's question, thank you James Kempf for the
injection of sanity to the process :) you really put the truth in palatable
language, but I think maybe a few folks on the list might still have missed
the point:
The course of action you suggest *is* 'doing something about the problem'.

What's more, I think that if we were to see your recommendations in
practice, it would look a lot like what is happening with OpenSim and LL wrt
AWG/OGP.

So perhaps what is going 'wrong' with the MMOX effort is not so much about
whether the right thing is being done, as whether it is recognized that the
right thing is, by and large, already being done.

I don't know that any of the participants are particularly ready to produce
work that addresses the requirements of an IETF standard; but I do know that
this discussion is bearing certain fruit and should be continued, as it will
inform future work along these lines.

On what would seem to be the more mainstream topic of the use-case, I think
Jon left off perhaps the most fundamental interop capability of all from his
list: that of exchange of text communications ("chat") between endusers.
Without this, there really isnt any advantage in doing the three things he
lists; but as soon as user<->user communications across diverse worlds is
possible, the other three things he lists immediately begin to produce value
for the endusers of said divergent worlds.

OpenSim already has a reference technology in place that accomplishes such
an interoperation with IRC; a simulator may be given an 'identity' on an IRC
network (which then establishes it's own IRC channel), at which time all
public simulator chat is relayed to the IRC channel, and all IRC channel
user's chat from that channel relayed to the open chat in the simulator.

This allows users of IRC clients to participate in communications occurring
on the sim, as well as sim users to participate in the sim's IRC channel.

We have found it very usefull in a number of instances.

I might also point out that this interop requires absolutely no references
to objects, worlds, primitives or render-specific technologies.

Cheers :)

On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Jon Watte <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Morgaine wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Jon Watte <[e-mail] <mailto:
>> [e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>    My feedback is that we should make the implementation as cheap as
>>    possible to get some end-user visible benefit for virtual world
>>    interoperability, so that we can get lots of worlds on board. Agreed?
>>
>>
>> Not agreed at all actually. :-)
>>
>> In this context, proposing a technically cheap solution that has not been
>> assessed for scalability has somewhat limited interest.
>>
>
>
> I did not propose a non-scalable solution. I fully understand scalability
> regarding virtual worlds, and other systems.
>
> I simply propose that we make ease of adoption for a wide community an
> explicit goal, because if something is hard to adopt, it will not be
> adopted, and thus the standard is more likely to fail. The reason I want it
> to be an explicit guiding principle is that it's one of those things that
> may otherwise be overlooked when a few people with some particular
> background come up with a particular solution.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> jw
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>



-- 
===================================
http://osgrid.org
http://del.icio.us/SPQR
http://twitter.com/jstallings2
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/5/770/a49