Re: [mmox] taxonomy of topics

Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com> Thu, 26 February 2009 00:59 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 7CFD83A6B2F for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:59:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.892
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.892 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 u-ozb725WQGU for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:59:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-fx0-f176.google.com (mail-fx0-f176.google.com [209.85.220.176]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94A413A6A9C for <mmox@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:59:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fxm24 with SMTP id 24so270213fxm.37 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:59:36 -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=oqo7pURusNAJ2DHxU0UDLxrgOSk6wkLMq18amYKBIow=; b=nj3ASjXMlgZ7hh4sEsoEOaDVbhren6r6gtR22AgOn6NpgJTq4tzxGW4uODYnBbbUKP Opt8UqeMq57Guausa+G9rWbqxyRv32/kTayNaTIoeYM7vhK+Wt8V16IqG3HJj0iX/8oU YqODKHlXRuigfgziz/eEYwXJxh95bV0DqX3Jg=
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=AUKnKan60IC/BAv79HZhBy6KIHynIz3snGWxtqVDpFgZeyO6JCBN67TMYJhfDMaqgg /HG0G2hXJnFsbF2Zl8BKAnGfjFbgGKarq3oc0wttk0Djb6DyRkfYHvtkSWbwi5phOjqn pYoJf0VDaKmVwoWKaICiwPO6gvcdg7NMKivTQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.180.242.5 with SMTP id p5mr235931bkh.124.1235609976624; Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:59:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <05E4C6F6-14A9-42AF-9314-A51F8DF0A7C3@lindenlab.com>
References: <05E4C6F6-14A9-42AF-9314-A51F8DF0A7C3@lindenlab.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:59:36 +0000
Message-ID: <e0b04bba0902251659x783a8829h3f0990fd8735c48d@mail.gmail.com>
From: Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
To: Infinity Meadhbh Hamrick <infinity@lindenlab.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001636c5b541bcd6b10463c7dd4f"
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 00:59:18 -0000

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Infinity Meadhbh Hamrick <
infinity@lindenlab.com> 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.
>


I suspect that this is precisely the source of many of the problems that
have preoccupied MMOX discussions across many threads.  Giving OGP the IETF
treatment and generating some very useful RFCs is an admirable cause, an
extension of AWG work, and would greatly advance interop between SL-like
worlds.

Unfortunately, instead of forming an OGP group, MMOX was defined as an
interop group expressly targetted at providing interop across many different
virtual worlds and MMO technologies.  The name of the group makes this
clear, and the original statements from both co-chairs endorse the broad
view even more vividly.

Clearly there is a disconnect between intent and presentation.

In this much wider VW context, OGP can at most be one input to the process,
and the end result of a successful workgroup would probably be nothing like
OGP even if it incorporated some of the good ideas from it.

This is the heart of the matter.  The Linden goal as you describe it above
is one thing, but the IETF group was set up with a totally different
declared intent.

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.


Morgaine.






On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Infinity Meadhbh Hamrick <
infinity@lindenlab.com> 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
> * 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.
> * MMOX Charter
>        * we should rename everything
>        * we should abandon interoperability in favor of general agreement
> of model
> * IETF
> * Virtual Worlds in General
>        * Previously Established Protocols
>                * HLA, DIS, IEEE-1278 and related protocols
>                * OLIVE
>                * MXP?
>                * VRML
>        * Representation of virtual objects
>                * meshes vs. prims
>                * interaction models for virtual objects
>        * 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?
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> mmox@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>