IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mmox] LLSD and content schema

Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com> Tue, 24 February 2009 01:22 UTC

Return-Path: <jwatte@gmail.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 E7E9228C1C6 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:22:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.519
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 6KEJsii8qq24 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:22:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gx0-f174.google.com (mail-gx0-f174.google.com [209.85.217.174]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E87A528C0DF for <mmox@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:22:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gxk22 with SMTP id 22so6065570gxk.13 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:23:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6VfyZsldUOBoL350Z0UYM88aOvPYGkfU3aJiIRmJCdo=; b=h1ISoRdwsIyxGVtJQvz66aKnY8dHOmMsj/XVC3wST8eYHdSe+yg24S7ONrDigKCbkF i1eRmPnqYGdFTN5tvYCvG9vqUPzUYjwCe8c2zO0ZoXHBudFkwLZmLpb6E9gMeUGCzVfY OhLB2c6ZNq8I58mwog0a6ZUXVxi6pWRlHal+A=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Tt8kETLHxg9w+nTHpR0VeY2l4/2l12ifogZbiR2/Ond3nMG1Lfp5iTakfr5ei6YwFT 978LTP7j62z1ZwUe/+OY6dsmBifPr8A0POGBHhxd05s0bE0PWVBcbjktNhsOkiK73uW5 T/gRv0i4gUlX2/y3NBgESt80tRW3DCHf01c1Q=
Received: by 10.100.8.4 with SMTP id 4mr4742102anh.118.1235438579800; Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:22:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?192.168.168.111? (smtp.forterrainc.com [208.64.184.34]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b32sm1141143ana.55.2009.02.23.17.22.58 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:22:59 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <49A34BF1.6050501@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:22:57 -0800
From: Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lisa Dusseault <lisa.dusseault@gmail.com>
References: <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933D501FE18E@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com> <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933D50262DA8@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com> <29656.28734.qm@web82607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <61320.78349.qm@web82607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <962799.66993.qm@web82608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <53cd6c2e0902200741m2313b1eeqffc87c8601fd72e2@mail.gmail.com> <88DFFC67-0B59-4D65-86FB-8776899B794A@lindenlab.com> <499F10D7.5080605@gmail.com> <CAAD3457-49CD-4F62-BD42-90BE79DA232D@lindenlab.com> <ca722a9e0902231649x216e71ebsfaab517a4c66ca2e@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ca722a9e0902231649x216e71ebsfaab517a4c66ca2e@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "mmox@ietf.org" <mmox@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mmox] LLSD and content schema
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: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:22:43 -0000

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> Also, related to this thread, the IETF rarely does binary protocols in 
> the layers I've been involved in.  Clear text, perhaps with 
> compression at a lower layer, makes a protocol much easier to debug, 
> maintain, test and make interoperate.

I agree, for services and transactional stuff, text protocols are much 
better.

Real-time entity telemetry data probably needs to be binary, for the 
same reason that streaming video, or VoIP data is binary.

Sincerely,

jw

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email