Re: [mmox] Creating walled gardens considered harmful

Dan Olivares <dcolivares@gmail.com> Tue, 31 March 2009 01:23 UTC

Return-Path: <dcolivares@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 829823A65A6 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:23:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.969
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.969 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.370, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_BACKHAIR_44=1]
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 LYl4U0MAz8v3 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f160.google.com (mail-gx0-f160.google.com [209.85.217.160]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61EEF3A68A4 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:23:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk4 with SMTP id 4so4990394gxk.13 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:24:46 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=9GkBmtmRMwwDp3HoS11P8d2dRradIuE78aUhMeOUXD8=; b=W4t10dFHDjjqIw5kmSvGUtblsRERnCpFToDBBPu6EFraIO74JCYqRZ1fcntD3LQfqI Hk1t2P5kGrC31ReQ3jF8flpYY62nC2qyzVD0+yHjaz9EXC8ktHUS/DGPSRp/fKZ8gZMb EswdEWmCQiCdC92rRMtcZAh2Poq8X4ZfbUR5A=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=yGk6Br77iH5Y1+6UMrQByLHvsmRq0ClkFPkNMp3OZiRG/yUPmcixK5GcqW92vwRdKO JBvYGM6irNecK0+bQJr1i3Apjxs709k9rTsZw+sQ90W1E+jGzZXBEjdUsXD+bqGXRPpg LDVZVlj0ocbhetRBvk2LMGJaVz/QVRf8/icqE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.158.10 with SMTP id g10mr11488495ybe.166.1238462686796; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:24:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <49D1653A.8030905@gmail.com>
References: <e0b04bba0903250007k6886383bja0a06884e8081ac7@mail.gmail.com> <49CF1B1E.4070506@gmail.com> <e0b04bba0903290138ifbfaf18p930f87d1e49e6dbb@mail.gmail.com> <49D0081E.4010007@gmail.com> <e0b04bba0903291942k69f6e970yee8b8a80dd8df2fa@mail.gmail.com> <49D0D846.5010401@gmail.com> <170fa1780903300854s34da03eaq8b3ed2f7eb9c2a62@mail.gmail.com> <382d73da0903301459j308445f7uec660dab275175a1@mail.gmail.com> <e0b04bba0903301604x36fa28c7u2dbd6db53bd082c@mail.gmail.com> <49D1653A.8030905@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:24:46 -0400
Message-ID: <a768bcd90903301824y441cc2f6ideb27cc9c6319782@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dan Olivares <dcolivares@gmail.com>
To: Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Kari Lippert <kari.lippert@gmail.com>, MMOX-IETF <mmox@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mmox] Creating walled gardens considered harmful
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, 31 Mar 2009 01:23:49 -0000

Heh,

Debating the word landmark seems a little silly.   Call it 3D
hyperlink, or..    portal link..  or whatever :)  The point is that
you make an action using it :).  Generally..  I use the term Landmark
to refer to objects along the way that I can recognize to help me get
somewhere.

Best Regards

Dan


On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for referencing that use case. It's interesting that the answer to
> those questions hasn't actually been posted yet...
>
> What if the destination is a for-profit world, and the reason you could get
> there in the first place was that some paying customer invited you? Then
> when you want to return, there is no paying customer to share the "cost"
> (loosely defined).
>
> Do we really want to use the term "landmark" in interop speak? That sounds a
> little too SL specific? Else, would you define what a "landmark" really
> means?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> jw
>
>
> Morgaine wrote:
>>
>> 2009/3/30 Kari Lippert <kari.lippert@gmail.com
>> <mailto:kari.lippert@gmail.com>>
>>
>>
>>    I understand "teleport" (and believe if you can define it well
>>    enough, smart people can make it so) but it leaves me asking why?
>>    Why would a user desire to "teleport" from one VWE to another?
>>
>>
>>
>> Given this interop scenario
>> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg01114.html>, which
>> reflects the normal way in which humans organize their lives around travel
>> between different places, a reasonable answer to your question is probably
>> that our various forms of inter-VW travel (continguous handover, portal
>> crossings, and discontiguous transitions) are a natural extrapolation of our
>> everyday experience.
>>
>> In the real world, we're rather limited in the methods by which we can
>> move between distant lands.  The nearest thing to an instantaneous teleport
>> between London and Boston is to get on a jet plane, go to sleep for several
>> hours, and wake up in a different place.  Virtual worlds are of course much
>> more flexible, so because we /can/ teleport instantaneously, we /do/.  It's
>> only one of several methods, though.
>>
>> Of course, instantaneous travel is not to everyone's taste, but nor is
>> lengthy and laborious contiguous travel to everyone's taste.  In any case,
>> VWs differ in their topological connectivity to other worlds and therefore
>> no single approach is possible, nor desireable.
>>
>> Fortunately, these are matters of policy, whereas our interests here is
>> providing mechanisms that can support a wide range of policies.  The three
>> underlying components of teleport
>> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg01208.html> are
>> applicable to a very wide range of VWs indeed.
>>
>>
>> Morgaine.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2009/3/30 Kari Lippert <kari.lippert@gmail.com
>> <mailto:kari.lippert@gmail.com>>
>>
>>    <clearing throat>
>>
>>    I've been lurking for some time now and reading and trying to
>>    understand the basic user requirement that is driving this work. I
>>    have to admit this is as close as I've seen.
>>
>>    I understand "teleport" (and believe if you can define it well
>>    enough, smart people can make it so) but it leaves me asking why?
>>    Why would a user desire to "teleport" from one VWE to another? The
>>    answer to this will, I believe, help you focus on what needs to be
>>    included in the definition of what it means to "teleport", and
>>    what can be safely set aside for the moment.
>>
>>    Kari
>>
>>    2009/3/30 James Stallings II <james.stallings@gmail.com
>>    <mailto:james.stallings@gmail.com>>
>>
>>
>>
>>        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.
>>
>>
>>
>>    _______________________________________________
>>    mmox mailing list
>>    mmox@ietf.org <mailto:mmox@ietf.org>
>>    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> mmox@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>