Re: [mmox] taxonomy of topics

["Hurliman, John" <[e-mail]>]

If this is a request to limit what topics will be discussed by MMOX, can we please cut LLSD, OGP, and HyperGrid out of the discussion? I've posted my critiques of both to this mailing list and I feel that using another IDL such as Google Protocol Buffers, and starting over from scratch for cross-domain communication would be in the better interest of the virtual world interop. HyperGrid is another implementation of the same trust map proposal of OGP (with different default settings), and no one has suggested that they will be submitting it as a proposal.

John

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>Meadhbh Hamrick
>Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 8:08 AM
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: [mmox] taxonomy of topics
>
>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
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>