Re: [mmox] what does it mean to be interoperable?

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Infinity Meadhbh Hamrick <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> 5. interoperability means some virtual worlds use some of the same
> protocols, without a universal client
> ...
> personally.. i'm kind of interested in option 5.



Options 5 is a perfectly good option for a workgroup formed around the
common goal of implementing some specific protocols in a similarly-focused
group.  As you pointed out in your paragraph that I quoted concerning
"taxonomy of topics"<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg00724.html>,
the protocols which you intend to use are those based on the OGP model.
This sounds like an excellent thing to tackle, in an OGP workgroup.  I would
look forward to that work, as it would undoubtedly help advance interop
between SL-like worlds.  Furthermore, the workgroup name and charter would
honestly reflect the intent, allowing participants interested in such a goal
to work productively with helpful consensus.

In contrast, as pointed out by our co-chair under "Charter, Scope,
Activities"<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg00025.html>and
in even more detail under "Strawman
scope/goals/approach"<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg00626.html>,
the goals and intent of MMOX are very different to the above, and the name
of the group reinforces that.  The narrow scope of Option 5 and the specific
focus on LL technologies doesn't come anwhere near the catchment area that
MMOX participants have been discussing.

I think that both of the above are worthy goals to be handled under the
aegis of the IETF.  But work on OGP is hampered by the very clear fact that
MMOX discussions and requirements are far broader and can't be forced into
an a priori straightjacket.  By the same token, work on MMOX is likewise
being hampered by a narrow focus on near-term Linden goals.

This is why I am trying to find an approach that will allow both groups of
interests to be successful and productive.  Currently there is little
commonality owing to the gulf between the actual narrow intent stated in
your "taxonomy of topics" and the very much broader goals of MMOX.


Morgaine.







On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Infinity Meadhbh Hamrick <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> so it seems clear we all have different ideas of what it means to be
> interoperable.
>
> i thought i might try to define a couple of the definitions i think i've
> seen people use:
>
> 1. interoperability means all virtual worlds, wherever they are, may be
> accessed via a single unified client.
>
> 2. interoperability means all virtual worlds, wherever they are, use
> precisely the same protocol(s) and all virtual worlds represent data in
> formats understandable by all other virtual worlds, with a universal client.
>
> 3. interoperability means some virtual worlds may be accessed via a single
> unified client.
>
> 4. interoperability means some virtual worlds use precisely the same
> protocol(s) and all virtual worlds represent data in formats understandable
> by all other virtual worlds, without a universal client.
>
> 5. interoperability means some virtual worlds use some of the same
> protocols, without a universal client
>
> 6. interoperability means the "model" is the same, but with different
> protocols that may be bridged with protocol gateways.
>
> it seems to me that many of us are using different descriptions for the
> word "interoperable" and it's causing mild discord and at least a couple
> instances of us talking past each other.
>
> personally.. i'm kind of interested in option 5. it has the benefit of
> producing a protocol that is identifiable by routers, network management
> software, etc. it also provides a "slowly moving target" for open source
> developers (as opposed to the "fast moving target" of linden's existing
> protocol(s)). by making it public, VW operators can choose whether or not
> they wish to implement it. it also doesn't require VW operators to implement
> it (as if we could anyway) and it allows VW operators to avoid having to
> test interoperability with every other virtual world.
>
> but it's not without drawbacks... this model can lead to a "MOSS-like"
> environment. (for those of you who don't remember MOSS or MIME Object(?)
> Security Services... it was a response to the drawbacks of PEM (privacy
> enhanced mail) which had a relative paucity of encryption options. but IMHO,
> MOSS introduced so many options that it was VERY easy for two
> implementations to adhere to the spec, but not actually be interoperable.)
>
> so... i recommend that if we (as a group) wanted to pursue option-5.. we
> also explicitly define what goes in an "interoperability profile." that way
> you could get the benefit of having a relatively stable protocol that could
> be targeted by open source developers which could be used by VW operators to
> help make client / server apps.
>
> VW operators could publish their "interoperability profile" to tell people
> who wanted to build tools, extra services, or interoperable worlds what
> options would be available and how they would work.
>
> -cheers
> -m
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>