IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mmox] taxonomy of topics

Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com> Thu, 26 February 2009 02:43 UTC

Return-Path: <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.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 1CA1D28C2A7 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:43:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.062
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.062 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.752, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_FWDLOOK=1.666]
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 P5H6JRqBqV60 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:43:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bw0-f178.google.com (mail-bw0-f178.google.com [209.85.218.178]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93FE83A6783 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:43:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by bwz26 with SMTP id 26so288950bwz.37 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:43:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=cpw/065a1oVH1xISb3V2sLDgepwxf30xzSNjihKA3bg=; b=Jt89GC4iaRBa/yvPQd9NfC6rkysbegiU8F4P/r4ZPWW2aGIvsMGP1nAJkYtLiTa2Jy nnsHxE0arunNtpk9nQlkojtxKLgW/BgXaitqRW6u+kqYg7Uu+i2AlL/aTpJmv1ezRikV lAp/S4f8CxINf1idutGkbFT4Q6/TkBe8PCiqc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=oEibFS6u1k3Ty/tSQcObfl+H5DcFOPkmaRVMjbKsjhYAxMlW4F4QP3ujXfWckp5AMI SEvg0Da4tWYezyNXbL+2EsCmyPxuh9oRbB/dAAbNhK2R7a0rPFat36HGO7ehHWaQKRqQ ZgsQ+Xdh1WgbqXLNkr1Xy+AVROhRVhd2oDga8=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.181.61.7 with SMTP id o7mr270961bkk.85.1235616225581; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:43:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <49A5F589.4090803@gmail.com>
References: <05E4C6F6-14A9-42AF-9314-A51F8DF0A7C3@lindenlab.com> <e0b04bba0902251659x783a8829h3f0990fd8735c48d@mail.gmail.com> <49A5F589.4090803@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 02:43:45 +0000
Message-ID: <e0b04bba0902251843j1290d8fkdf0b416bf8d9448e@mail.gmail.com>
From: Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
To: Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00163649914734595d0463c95283"
Cc: mmox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mmox] taxonomy of topics
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: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 02:43:27 -0000

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com> wrote:

> Morgaine wrote:
>
>> I wonder if perhaps we could do both, and thus avoid the conflict:
>>  separate OGP and MMOX workgroups.  An OGP workgroup would be an excellent
>> thing to work on, and as an AWG member I would certainly like to help fill
>> in the parts that OGP has not yet defined.  But a MMOX group that targets
>> the broader reaches of VW interop is also highly worthwhile, and much more
>> visionary, and valuable to many more people.
>>
>
> Why couldn't OGP stay in the AWG?


It's not your place to deny Linden Lab the IETF standardization of their
protocols, assuming that two independent reference implementations can be
found.   The only problem is when it's done under false pretenses.

>
>
> And assuming that's the split, then would the Second Life people still be
> interested in the broader interoperability?


My belief is that yes, they would, because in addition to having people
focussed on improving their current technology, Linden Lab also has many
very forward-looking visionaries that can see beyond the current SL.  In any
case, MMOX was not formed by LL alone:  IBM has extremely broad VW
interests.

If you wish to suggest that those two goals can sometimes be in conflict
within LL, then you would be right.  But if you were to suggest that it's
either/or, then you would be wrong.

Morgaine.







On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com> wrote:

> Morgaine wrote:
>
>> I wonder if perhaps we could do both, and thus avoid the conflict:
>>  separate OGP and MMOX workgroups.  An OGP workgroup would be an excellent
>> thing to work on, and as an AWG member I would certainly like to help fill
>> in the parts that OGP has not yet defined.  But a MMOX group that targets
>> the broader reaches of VW interop is also highly worthwhile, and much more
>> visionary, and valuable to many more people.
>>
>
> Why couldn't OGP stay in the AWG?
>
> And assuming that's the split, then would the Second Life people still be
> interested in the broader interoperability?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> jw
>
>

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status