IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mmox] taxonomy of topics

Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com> Thu, 26 February 2009 04:18 UTC

Return-Path: <jwatte@gmail.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 BE2D13A687F for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:18:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 d1qoAPico4Xc for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:18:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.174]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D57AE3A6963 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:18:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 27so403893wfd.31 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:19:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=D1IvLwG9ISKPbb0pqBWK2Pi0jRjWvk5m4sBRd3GrFBM=; b=CyQDVF1fXojZmGHYQIFnvC6xTYHIrbvM6mrIAdYFNgy5N2+sPFmGkM5UbkdL7Tvu+l 1/hUtqdCWHz6M8skynHhoK1qx6djQd9c0lmU9iA+aa+3uhpc3VcwxRNk5zXNNLPz4zWU 897kAJL435676KYZ5mPtvxQPsMzMMD6VCQAeI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=BRb2AjmIAgOo2hvEKyEYgzkqVJt93wN6dtBscEeAMGBnV+4m4Wy3l5UJiFoqDADLjI CSGNEldVyym7XNuMNUl3iu6dupuH26gNCILWhpoV+2Li6A3oICbezIlyd4LH9E6DAice h9RmOG1h/JkHb25nfVm8CaZpDGtD6EUe2QV2k=
Received: by 10.142.155.17 with SMTP id c17mr435225wfe.223.1235621957326; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:19:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?192.168.1.101? (svn.mindcontrol.org [69.17.45.136]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 30sm3872372wff.7.2009.02.25.20.19.16 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:19:16 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <49A61843.7020001@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:19:15 -0800
From: Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
References: <05E4C6F6-14A9-42AF-9314-A51F8DF0A7C3@lindenlab.com> <e0b04bba0902251659x783a8829h3f0990fd8735c48d@mail.gmail.com> <49A5F589.4090803@gmail.com> <e0b04bba0902251843j1290d8fkdf0b416bf8d9448e@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e0b04bba0902251843j1290d8fkdf0b416bf8d9448e@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: mmox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mmox] taxonomy of topics
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: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 04:18:57 -0000

Morgaine wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com 
> <mailto:jwatte@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     Why couldn't OGP stay in the AWG?
>
>
> It's not your place to deny Linden Lab the IETF standardization of 
> their protocols, assuming that two independent reference 
> implementations can be found.   The only problem is when it's done 
> under false pretenses.

I think you're assuming some meaning I did not intend. It was an honest 
question: What could you do, with Second Life protocols, through a 
narrowly focused, Second Life centric IETF group, that you could not do, 
potentially faster and easier, in the AWG?

>
>  IBM has extremely broad VW interests.

I can't help but have noticed :-)

>  
> If you wish to suggest that those two goals can sometimes be in 
> conflict within LL, then you would be right.  But if you were to 
> suggest that it's either/or, then you would be wrong.

I am suggesting nothing; I am asking questions because I don't feel I 
have a good read on the situation, and I am honestly interested in the 
answers.

Sincerely,

jw

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email