Re: [mmox] taxonomy of topics

Kajikawa Jeremy <> Wed, 25 February 2009 12:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 179193A688A for <>; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:58:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.325
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.325 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.274, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q36BN-EWyIms for <>; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:58:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E84263A67D6 for <>; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:58:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id l9so5487rvb.49 for <>; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:59:07 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:to:cc :in-reply-to:references:disposition-notification-to:content-type :date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=HjfjPh01+XwtBw1snKgh5i7j15AnHLYq667gR3VcWwo=; b=ocBu01Zq8a7UmuXOWuGLhtHckLxdOtYHj4pyKxck43ZxO8mSi3V7HDXgs6XuJ5MuNC LuK7NUQlmgg6s7F46tFdqtpFdo+sQG+lOYV3GSXKvyBnREcmF824JayD/jR2IOuJSnbU CHgPHINgsLCWDFTaWjXqd919qwObmrhg7Q2hs=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references :disposition-notification-to:content-type:date:message-id :mime-version:x-mailer; b=UHhgrmtCJgp4Pz+Yr+9mRzMk5iq4/eJfGb+ZE2VEQc+KdzmM/PtZh+bPYuzvM9x0TA Ven4rc4akMachiapTHSnwGqRxzdnNj258AiD4IGy5oPnlqm9Xv7lNMkEhbAbdHeyxUs1 AuYnEINUH70ZwZC/aIRjoq+q6J0lUfFh+DySY=
Received: by with SMTP id c15mr52716rvm.52.1235566747075; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:59:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ? ( []) by with ESMTPS id k2sm1573743rvb.4.2009. (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:59:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Kajikawa Jeremy <>
To: Meadhbh Hamrick <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-VRPFLtpKOquuscWbrz97"
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:53:36 +0900
Message-Id: <1235566416.4026.11.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution
Cc: "" <>
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: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:58:49 -0000

On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 08:08 -0800, Meadhbh Hamrick wrote:
> so... what started as a pleasant little proposal to take our (the  
> awg's) pleasant little protocol (ogp) kick it around in public (the  
> mmox mailing list) and potentially generate some RFCs from it seems to  
> have spawned a number of discussions. _all_ of the discussions are  
> interesting, but perhaps not all of them are germane to the proposed  
> task.

> 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?

> to be sure... we _are_ in the stage where the charter is important to  
> discuss... but i'm just wondering... and these questions are here to  
> spark _conversation_, not radical debate. there are rational answers,  
> pro and con, to each of these questions and teasing them out is  
> important...
> 	* why would we care about HLA, DIS or IEEE-1278? they're already  
> standardized. (though understanding that the structure of something  
> like OGP differs from the structure of these protocols _is_ important.)
> 	* why do we care about OLIVE, which is a proprietary protocol with a  
> single implementation?
> 	* why do we care about MXP whose apparent dependence on another  
> protocol with unclear IPR encumbrance gives some people on this list  
> the willies.
> so the questions i pose are...
> 	* pursuit of which of these topics brings us to our goal of an  
> interoperable virtual worlds?
> 	* what does it mean to be interoperable?
> 	* must we have early agreement on all topics before we move forward  
> with any component?

> * OGP (Open Grid Protocol)
> 	* should OGP be named something else?
> 	* how do we do the event queue? (COMET? Bayeux? RHTTP? Long Poll?)
> 	* where do we stuff permissions in this model?
> 	* OGP/Teleport is not HyperGrid

Open Grid Protocol currently limits itself by recognising SecondLife
specifics before
 usability across to non-SecondLife services.

an *interoperability* protocol needs to be based on a common formatting
with layer
  approach similar to how the logical and physical layers of ethernet
are seperated.

Recognition of Identity - One User - Many VWs with Seperate or same
login to all?
Recognition of location -  Where is the representation of the User? a
single VW or
 multiple VWs sharing a common "location area" ?

> * LLSD
> 	* why is LLSD different from XDR? ASN.1? Google ProtocolBuffers?
> 	* 128 bit integers? good enough?
> 	* should LLSD be named something else?
> 	* XML serialization
> 		* maps are too much like apple plists in the XML serialization.

LLSD or any other "format"/"protocol" and similar is binding
nomenclature of
 an existing "name" and pushing recognition,  the OpenGridProtocol would
 to allow the serialization to be modularized and an option to replace
it when
 newer specification versions need such a major change.

> * MMOX Charter
> 	* we should rename everything
> 	* we should abandon interoperability in favor of general agreement of  
> model

 is MMOX a branching of Linden Labs specifically or is this an *open*

Does linden lab want a delayed backlash from technical users akin to the
 from Microsofts efforts with the MSOOXML and its having country votes
 becoming a ratified standard?

I propose a more fine-grained modular approach in the design of included
  OGP as it is may need to be changed from having LLSD serialization. 

> * IETF
> * Virtual Worlds in General
> 	* Previously Established Protocols
> 		* HLA, DIS, IEEE-1278 and related protocols
> 		* OLIVE
> 		* MXP?
> 		* VRML
Definitely be aware of these and how are they different? 

> 	* Representation of virtual objects
> 		* meshes vs. prims
> 		* interaction models for virtual objects
What is common and what is uncommon already? ... do we re-use an open
format for
 serialization of OGP?

> 	* Intellectual Property Regimes for Virtual Worlds
> 		* Creative Commons (awesome gateway to free culture or the ultimate  
> embodiment of evil in the noosphere?)
> 		* DRM (the only way i'll trust you with my content or the ultimate  
> embodiment of evil in the noosphere?)
> 	* permissions regime
> 		* MPEG-21?
> 		* must we mandate the SL-style c/m/t permission?

Mandating C/M/T from SecondLife or *any* kind of permissions into the
 is in my own opinion a mistake and will lock the protocol to needing
that section
 changed at cost in the future...  

Defining a block extensible now will save effort

> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list