Re: [mmox] Creating walled gardens considered harmful

[Jon Watte <[e-mail]>]

Morgaine wrote:
> I would like to think that post-BoF, now that everyone has pinned 
> their colours to the various corners of the ring, everyone will 
> instead gather in the centre and help in the job of problem analysis, 
> dealing with issues one at a time in an engineering manner.

That sounds fine.

When I learned engineering (a long time ago, admittedly), we always 
started with requirements, which in software engineering often ends up 
being use cases. I believe that the use case closest to the "teleport" 
feature that we're discussing is use case 1 from the list of use cases I 
previously posted, but that fell off the agenda at the BoF.

Is it reasonable to start with that use case as a basis for requirements?

(For reference, the link is: 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jwatte-mmox-use-cases-00 )


Also, if this work is going to be driven by representatives from Second 
Life, Open Sim, XR and OLIVE only, then we have two problems wrt. 
generally applicable standards:

1) Only two technology bases are covered -- what we do is not very 
likely to be applicable to any other technology, unless we do a lot of 
research on what the technology of other people is, too.
2) There's a very skewed ratio of participants between the two 
technology bases.

Do we want to solve or mitigate those problem, and if so, how?


Sincerely,

jw