Re: [mmox] LLSD

[Jesrad <[e-mail]>]

Just to be sure: LLSD in the context of MMOX is meant to fulfill
roughly the same goal as ASN.1
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Syntax_Notation_One) does in
general communications ?

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Charles Krinke <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Perhaps  I am being naive here, but I dont see anything in the draft
> proposal other then the definition of a few variable types and three mime
> definitions which seems completely innocuous to me.
>
> Admittedly, follow on draft proposals will undoubtedly favor one teams bias
> at the expense of another teams bias, but I cannot find a reason not to
> support this variable definition and mime definition draft.
>
> There is lots of time for us all to argue that our own favorite <whatever>
> is the best for the world, but it seems that any of the thoughts I have
> heard can all be built with this variable name and type standard.
>
> Charles
>
> ________________________________
> From: Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity) <[e-mail]>
> To: Charles Krinke <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 10:38:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [mmox] LLSD
>
> anything that uses LLSD and wants to be considered a "standard" must only
> provide normative references that are also "standards".
>
> essentially the deal here is we think the RFCs that will eventually provide
> the authoritative references for OGP should be put on the IETF "standards
> track." in fact, this is the primary raison d'être for the proposed working
> group. if OGP is to be a "real" IETF standard, all the documents it
> references as "normative" need to be standards as well.
>
> the alternative was to simply continue publishing our interface documents on
> our wiki and perhaps publishing LLSD as an informational RFC. however... we
> thought it better to use our existing OGP work as a starting point, put it
> out in a forum where the expertise of the internet engineering community
> could be utilized to review, comment and improve it. our objective is to
> create a robust, flexible family of protocols usable by the widest practical
> community.
>
> and for what it's worth, in the context of the proposed working group
> OGP/Teleport and HyperGrid are two proposals [1] for doing similar things.
> The two approaches _do_ seem assume different trust models, and maybe the
> future is that both will find wide adoption. the "define mechanism, not
> policy" mantra you sometimes hear some people repeat implies that neither
> approach should preclude implementations from implementing both. this is
> rather like most modern email user agents implementing both,POP3 _and_ IMAP.
> the two protocols do essentially the same thing, but there's nothing in
> either protocol that prevents you from using either or both in the same mail
> client.
>
> but i ramble.
>
> the question as i read it was "would trying to approve the draft of LLSD
> preclude or perturb further protocols?" the answer i would give would be
> "no. it shouldn't."
>
> -cheers
> -meadhbh
>
> [1] - yes... actually neither are currently internet drafts, but i believe
> John is working on something HyperGridish and OGP/Teleport was listed on the
> draft charter of the proposed working group.
>
> On Feb 19, 2009, at 8:34 PM, Charles Krinke wrote:
>
>> Ok, Meadhbh:
>>
>> In looking at this draft *and* hoping I dont make my OpenSim peers too
>> unhappy with me, let me ask a question.
>>
>> "Is there any reason why trying to approve the draft LLSD spec would
>> preclude or pertubate either OGP, HyperGrid or other similar notions from
>> being supported?"
>>
>> Charles
>>
>> From: Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity) <[e-mail]>
>> To: Charles Krinke <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 8:10:05 PM
>> Subject: Re: [mmox] LLSD
>>
>> http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/MMOX is non-authoritative, but yes LLSD is
>> one of the work items we have on the list.
>>
>> the objective of LLSD is to provide an abstract type system with multiple
>> serializations. it also defines the mime types.
>>
>> however, to say that the LLSD draft exists only to define the
>> serializations is akin to saying that ASN.1 exists only to provide input
>> into DER or BER encodings. the two are linked, but each has a particular
>> use.
>>
>> LLSD as an abstract type system allows us to define and reason about the
>> semantics of structured data used in PDUs independent of an existing
>> implementation language. the serialization rules allow us to format
>> structured data prior to transport and later de-serialize it after receipt.
>> the MIME type registrations allow us to identify the serialization scheme
>> used on transports that support the use of MIME types. LLIDL (pronounced
>> "little") defines the set of expected parameters to and responses from a
>> resource access.
>>
>> LLSD was selected as the first draft to work on as it is used as a
>> building block for other protocol interactions, some of which are published
>> in draft form on the second life wiki. the further development of these
>> protocols is also considered a task of the proposed working group.
>>
>> -cheers
>> -meadhbh
>>
>> On Feb 19, 2009, at 7:52 PM, Charles Krinke wrote:
>>
>>> In looking at the secondlife wiki at http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/MMOX
>>> it looks like one of the first proposals for this working group is the LLSD
>>> draft specification.
>>>
>>> Am I correct in that the gist of the LLSD specification is essentially to
>>> propose three mime formats and thats about it for now?
>>>
>>> application/llsd+xml
>>> application/llsd+json
>>> application/llsd+binary
>>>
>>> Charles
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mmox mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>
>