Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario
"Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <infinity@lindenlab.com> Thu, 12 March 2009 19:08 UTC
Return-Path: <infinity@lindenlab.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 38B8F28C1D9 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:08:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.554
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 Amu2VJTTOcZ1 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tammy.lindenlab.com (tammy.lindenlab.com [64.154.223.128]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FA6B3A6835 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:08:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.10] (unknown [63.249.112.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tammy.lindenlab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0DDF1414004; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:09:07 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <8726F659-3369-476A-B73D-789B947F56DE@lindenlab.com>
From: "Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <infinity@lindenlab.com>
To: Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <49B95AAA.7000009@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:09:05 -0700
References: <e0b04bba0903120735s5311a922ybbc40a30433166a3@mail.gmail.com><49B934B9.3080408@gmail.com> <49B940DF.8040009@lindenlab.com> <49B95AAA.7000009@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
Cc: MMOX-IETF <mmox@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario
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, 12 Mar 2009 19:08:33 -0000
jon. yes, we do believe it's a good idea to specify interaction between hosts in a standard protocol. no. we do not believe it is appropriate for a protocol to specify a GUI, which is why the OGP designers did not include a GUI in the specification. You will note that there are also no sections in the standard limiting end points to use a particular format for the creation of scene graphs, nor is there a specification for how version patching for executable is to be accomplished. nor is there a specification for mapping arrow keys to RPC calls. sorry to lose you to this effort, we look forward to seeing your work with LESS and MXP. -cheers -meadhbh On Mar 12, 2009, at 11:55 AM, Jon Watte wrote: > Rob Lanphier wrote: >> Yes, one can assume client A can talk to servers B and C if we >> actually >> go about the work of defining a standard client-server protocol >> spelling >> out how the client is expected to behave in that transaction. >> > > Do you seriously think it's a good idea to specify all the minutiae > of how a server and client interact, as a standard protocol? > Including how GUI is tied to local and remote capabilities, how a > scene graph is constructed and animated, how version patching is > done, how user control is forwarded, etc? > And all that work, just to be able to show up in world B instead of > world A? What about objects you want to use cross worlds; are you > saying you also want to specify the exact runtime requirements for > objects (scripting language, physics interface, etc)? > > Personally, I believe that trying to do that means that there will > be no cross-world interoperability except for the worlds that share > the same DNA (meaning SecondLife <-> OpenSim, and perhaps > ActiveWorlds <-> Worlds.com, and perhaps OLIVE <-> There.com). I > think that would be a huge loss. Additionally, I think that all of > that effort will actually not solve any problem that users care > about, because all it really solves is saving users from having to > install an extra client. But even in the ActiveWorlds <-> Worlds.com > scenario, or the OLIVE <-> There.com scenario, because the platforms > share technology DNA, using OGP is probably more work than it's > worth, because there is already an existing infrastructure that is > less resistance, and achieves the same amount of interop. OGP > doesn't help interop, in this case, except for the Second Life <-> > Open Sim case. > > Meanwhile, I believe that the real enabler of interop is to be able > to merge the simulations of different worlds, something like LESS or > MXP. If you think about it, that model actually provides the same > benefit you seek: the user being able to visit other places. It even > provides the benefit of the user not having to install more than one > client, ever, as long as the user's "home" world (or "virtual world > service provider" if you will) is interoperable. However, it also > provides the benefit of being able to use a There.com car, while > letting ActiveWorlds users see you do that (and perhaps even ride > the car). Also, the LESS/MXP approach requires much less engineering > to implement for the majority of world vendors. I know this from > experience, having done it for different protocols in the past. > > Thus, if the goal is general virtual world interoperability, I > believe the OGP model does not achieve it, whereas the LESS and MXP > model does. > > If the goal is to make systems with Linden Labs DNA interoperate, > such as Open Sim or RealXTend, then I suggest that you state that as > an explicit goal. I believe the feedback you're getting right now is > that OGP, as proposed, is not suitable for interop outside that > technology sphere. > > Sincerely, > > jw > > _______________________________________________ > mmox mailing list > mmox@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
- [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Rob Lanphier
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Ann Otoole
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Ann Otoole
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Mystical Demina
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Charles Krinke
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Bill Humphries
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Charles Krinke
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario David W Levine
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Charles Krinke
- [mmox] My reading of draft-lentczner-ogp-base-00 Latha Serevi
- Re: [mmox] My reading of draft-lentczner-ogp-base… Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Charles Krinke
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario eh2th-mmox
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Mystical Demina
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Ann Otoole
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario eh2th-mmox
- [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the Gener… Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Mystical Demina
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Charles Krinke
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Kajikawa Jeremy
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Charles Krinke
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Kajikawa Jeremy
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Frisby, Adam
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Charles Krinke
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Mark Lentczner
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Charles Krinke
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Charles Krinke
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Christian Scholz