Re: [mmox] Learning from the past; focusing on the future

Gareth Nelson <gareth@litesim.com> Tue, 24 February 2009 07:24 UTC

Return-Path: <gareth@litesim.com>
X-Original-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5D2A3A6969 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:24:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.854
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6Hhbz4UEnBLc for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:24:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from po-out-1718.google.com (po-out-1718.google.com [72.14.252.153]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F5E43A6946 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:24:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by po-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id b23so7522620poe.4 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:25:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.141.105.18 with SMTP id h18mr2444138rvm.109.1235460315287; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:25:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9A27EF31A4DF2C4C8BB45D661B13BA870535092E@MERCURY.forterrainc.com>
References: <FDF00DC7F277439581F4909E2C549AA6@KEVINPC> <49A2500F.3000104@gmail.com> <e0b04bba0902230031s5065080j61058011201cd929@mail.gmail.com> <49A311BC.90405@gmail.com> <9A27EF31A4DF2C4C8BB45D661B13BA870535083A@MERCURY.forterrainc.com> <A2272F1C-3D7C-4FF1-AD6A-3E5515371211@lindenlab.com> <61dbdd7d0902232322q620532f2ga190a28e4f1dac6c@mail.gmail.com> <9A27EF31A4DF2C4C8BB45D661B13BA870535092E@MERCURY.forterrainc.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:25:15 +0000
Message-ID: <61dbdd7d0902232325v85f628ag8bf1dadb148997d0@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gareth Nelson <gareth@litesim.com>
To: Robert Gehorsam <RGehorsam@forterrainc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com>, Mystical Demina <MysticalDemina@xrgrid.com>, mmox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mmox] Learning from the past; focusing on the future
X-BeenThere: mmox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Massively Multi-participant Online Games and Applications <mmox.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox>, <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox>
List-Post: <mailto:mmox@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox>, <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:24:58 -0000

Do we have a chronic case of the bystander problem? :)
I think such approaches may be best coming from a "big name", *cough*
LL and IBM *cough*

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 7:23 AM, Robert Gehorsam
<RGehorsam@forterrainc.com> wrote:
> Anyone who wants to, I think.  There are places like Virtual World News weekly where something could be posted too.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gareth Nelson [mailto:gareth@litesim.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 2:22 AM
> To: Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)
> Cc: Robert Gehorsam; mmox@ietf.org; Mystical Demina; Jon Watte
> Subject: Re: [mmox] Learning from the past; focusing on the future
>
> Not your place to commit them, but whose place is it to at least contact them?
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity) <infinity@lindenlab.com> wrote:
>> yes. the purpose of the upcoming MMOX BoF session is to get people
>> from a diverse collection of virtual worlds / MMOs in the same room at
>> the same time to discuss:
>>
>> a. is a working group a good idea?
>> b. if so, how should we constrain the problem domain?
>> c. if we can't agree on the same problem domain, does it make sense to
>> have multiple working groups?
>>
>> it is telling that the 74th IETF meeting is held during the same week
>> and less than a mile away from this year's game developers conference,
>> but it is not my place to commit representatives from the companies
>> you mention to attend.
>>
>> -cheers
>> -meadhbh
>>
>> On Feb 23, 2009, at 1:30 PM, Robert Gehorsam wrote:
>>
>>> I think part of the issue here with regard to the debate between
>>> broad and narrow interoperability is that, other than Jon
>>> representing Forterra's technical efforts, there are no other visibly
>>> participating technical representatives from any other virtual world
>>> technology providers or other relevant groups.  No one from Sun,
>>> Qwaq, Multiverse, HiPiHi, Activeworlds, any of the browser-based
>>> folks, Twinity, any of the game folks or kids worlds, Makena (the
>>> company that, contrary to some folks' assertions, is the company that
>>> makes and operates There.com), Proton Media, Icarus or its various
>>> partners, ECS, and so forth.   I've seen references to Qwaq but
>>> haven't seen Greg or anyone else from there participating here.
>>> There are probably two dozen companies that would be reasonable
>>> candidates for this discussion, not to mention companies like Adobe,
>>> Google, Intel, Samsung, Sony and, yes, even Microsoft, all of which
>>> might arguably have some interesting contributions to make.
>>>
>>> It may be that this lack of broad participation is creating -- fairly
>>> or unfairly -- the sense that the conversation will naturally drift
>>> towards an SL-OS orientation -- despite what I see as the best
>>> intentions of many people here -- simply because, other than
>>> Forterra, no one else is stepping up to the plate.   I can tell you
>>> that *that* is not something that Forterra wants to see, because it's
>>> inherent in our view of the evolution of the internet that
>>> interoperability between diverse virtual worlds is essential for all
>>> to succeed.  So the imbalance in this ongoing discussion creates a
>>> false dynamic of conflict when none is intended.  Without broad
>>> input, how can we achieve broad interoperability?
>>>
>>> Is there any outreach going on to these various organizations, or is
>>> that somehow not part of the policy?  Not being really familiar with
>>> the workings of these sorts of technical groups, I just don't know.
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: mmox-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmox-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>>> Of Jon Watte
>>> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 4:15 PM
>>> To: Morgaine
>>> Cc: Mystical Demina; mmox@ietf.org
>>> Subject: Re: [mmox] Learning from the past; focusing on the future
>>>
>>> Morgaine wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I can't understand why you continue to raise the spectre that we're
>>>> here to rubberstamp SL standards.  We aren't.  I'm not aware of
>>>> anybody with that agenda.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because there are several people on this list who say "OpenSim and
>>> Second Life are already trying to do client interoperability; I think
>>> we should run with it and not worry about something bigger."
>>> Similarly, I find that the current OGP proposal specifies some thing
>>> ("Rezzing" of avatars) that are Second Life centric, while not
>>> specifying other things that would be necessary for an actually
>>> useful interoperable virtual world (like entity telemetry).
>>>
>>> Similarly, if OGP is specified as a mostly empty vessel that can
>>> contain arbitrary negotiated data, what would probably happen would
>>> be that OpenSim puts OpenSim data in that vessel, and IMVU puts IMVU
>>> data in that vessel, and both claim to support "OGP interoperability"
>>> but you can't do anything useful through that claim. I want to avoid
>>> that outcome.
>>>>
>>>> We are working in good faith towards your item 2), while noting that
>>>> item 2) means interop with "all" reasonable worlds, and that
>>>> includes Linden worlds.  It's not either/or, it's both.  Please
>>>> grant us that, so that we can actually make headway.
>>>>
>>>> /(Proviso: your item 2) says /*single ... simulation*/, which is
>>>> incorrect, as we have no remit to straightjacket diverse worlds into
>>>> a
>>>
>>>> single simulation.)/
>>>
>>> What I mean by "single simulation" is what the user sees when
>>> connected to a specific, interoperating instance. I suppose the user
>>> could be connected to multiple of those, similar to opening multiple
>>> video streams in a media player, but then those generally have
>>> "nothing" to do with each other.
>>>
>>>
>>> Okay, so if most of us agree on 2), can we just say we have "rough
>>> consensus" on that, and politely reject any attempt to steer the work
>>> towards 1)?
>>>
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>>
>>> jw
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mmox mailing list
>>> mmox@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mmox mailing list
>>> mmox@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmox mailing list
>> mmox@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>>
>