[mmox] IETF policy question

Heiner Wolf <wolf.heiner@googlemail.com> Wed, 25 March 2009 23:19 UTC

Return-Path: <wolf.heiner@googlemail.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 E1D503A6B55 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.377
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.399, 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 m1lSvEAwEtNd for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-fx0-f158.google.com (mail-fx0-f158.google.com [209.85.220.158]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8B133A6B1F for <mmox@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:19:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by fxm2 with SMTP id 2so302319fxm.37 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=8dE3PUJBfUp5F9O+wSUIPjHh3wydHYE+aKcTM97xut4=; b=YRtrzxr77zLWdXXFRnc/Rf75xi/NArEvjpbPiPb8hcD61zvY7GYbyAmv5+CWeYA1aD DFvnoUNZiE4Pd8i81iMjFYBsOERgyuiQV3FrFv4CUq3xYxXicUeEsHWbnqnCW/4pq2F2 V22Kdc2OwQwrJcceOLO/ixIYThNBcWCdgYKLo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=ENGg0U8sHABkSPnqDRirueXTXCDZoh5LOUT/7lZr3KH7oCfoPtUETwI37m/Yb0MVyu KKIab2paX4TrT16VmlCG8N5E8JkjICMaCssZMSBOes0pOBF3MEHeFVyVxsyo7zWkMB7K LVvLxT/0ZQa9T6oO9YMjQcY/14aCgra4jQJFs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.115.12 with SMTP id s12mr63289mum.89.1238023213607; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:20:13 -0700
Message-ID: <5f303cb80903251620k163ede14y38e8785d94a417b3@mail.gmail.com>
From: Heiner Wolf <wolf.heiner@googlemail.com>
To: mmox@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [mmox] IETF policy question
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: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:19:23 -0000

Hi,

Assumed there are multiple systems with incompatible architecture,
each sophisticated and with it's own protocols.
Assumed that we as a WG do not know enough about the general problem space.
Assumed that there are sub-groups which know enough about their
problem and have working solutions.

What would the IETF do?
1. task one of the sub-groups to standardize one of the
protocol/architecture variants, although it might leave a large part
of the community out of the loop, while having at least a hope to
defeat fragmentation in the future
...or...
2. do not standardize at IETF level, which might be good for the
competition of ideas and allows the community to learn more about the
general problem space, but preserves fragmentation unless the market
cleans it up.

I am really undecided, but there is probably BCP in the IETF.

Best
-- 
Dr. Heiner Wolf
wolf.heiner@gmail.com
www.wolfspelz.de
www.virtual-presence.org