Re: [mmox] taxonomy of topics

Jon Watte <> Tue, 24 February 2009 19:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEC303A6874 for <>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:58:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.506
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UDRp8eX3I4i4 for <>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:58:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C65703A657C for <>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:58:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gxk7 with SMTP id 7so2740263gxk.13 for <>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:58:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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=RQ1Kh8AbriSmcyOfcUWHfCQagwXfSm5XJQqM9okUC64=; b=uQILBKZKx+edX5T5lQI/cENnaSELh9k30HB9YnEkly7oHxsOe4InUQCTz7RTaFVW0Q K0hzJvYtALMDgsxgT8qG6Mu5e62lPXzgaKp8RHGSJBtOBv8/Alt4OBHwwy79VEDIQNOb M8QA0z8Q/K+Ajx2inoiFw6rUBefMnVGrEwvrA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=nIwvX6jO60c/SOneZYryEgTWYBQ3/IRDHGJlcXaHvGVQ799vm4Az4WTT87pIvf0+VY U1XuRQUcVscW34yV1jFXF5tyiKc/rNwYzSVXQHQs1uTolUt9kbrD1uAkp6MTSl//wYJl jVh9R7G0H4bAjKfvCga6VOydoAan7BqnRxCKs=
Received: by with SMTP id u11mr176752ank.16.1235505519012; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:58:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ? ( []) by with ESMTPS id c9sm103307ana.33.2009. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:58:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:58:36 -0800
From: Jon Watte <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [mmox] taxonomy of topics
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Massively Multi-participant Online Games and Applications <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:58:20 -0000

Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity) wrote:
> so i ask.. is it appropriate to limit the discussion here to the MMOX 
> Charter, LLSD, OGP and HyperGrid with occasional reference to the IETF 
> IPR Disclosure Policy?

No, because neither OGP nor HyperGrid is suitably vendor/solution 
neutral at this point.
And, to get to what ought to be vendor neutral interoperability, we 
first need to define what that is. The ability to tunnel Second Life 
derived client/server stream data in an open container is probably not it.
The argument "it's already implemented" can be said about many things. 
The Quake protocol is already implemented, and has been used for a lot 
of client/server interoperability. OLIVE has at least three 
interoperability protocols implemented and in use by paying customers 
(DIS, HLA, and a non-published entity protocol).
The point is to examine each possible candidate for applicability to 
open, vendor-neutral interoperability that enables applications that 
currently are not enabled. Then make a determination of effort/benefit 
for each, and go from there towards something that has "rough consensus" 
(whatever that means).

>     * why do we care about OLIVE, which is a proprietary protocol with 
> a single implementation?

Because it is one of many, many virtual worlds in existence, and we are 
committed to providing good value to our customers. We believe this 
includes interoperability. Are you saying that your view of 
interoperability is "my way or the highway"?

> * OGP (Open Grid Protocol)

Is there a later published proposal than version 4 on the Second Life 
MMOX Wiki?

Anyway, if that is your approach, then I think a lot of us who are not 
from OpenSim or other Second Life derived technology should simply 
withdraw from participation. The question then is why task it under the 
IETF, when you could probably do it faster and easier within the Second 
Life AWG?