Re: [mmox] IETF policy question

But I think you are wrong about the other 57 platforms out there.  Don't
they all need to have a teleport location specification so that can jump
between their own virtual worlds time they are able to interoperate.  And if
they all move forward using the same specification the foundation is set for
when a client can interoperate with different virtual worlds.

But more than that, you suggest all 57 virtual worlds wait till they can all
talk together.  I will suggest to you the market will not wait for that.  To
me it better to have simple solution and grow it, than have no solution.

But that is my opinion, maybe others feel different.

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: mmox-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmox-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Heiner Wolf
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:20 PM
To: mmox@ietf.org
Subject: [mmox] IETF policy question

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
_______________________________________________
mmox mailing list
mmox@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox