Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario

Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com> Thu, 12 March 2009 15:24 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 CC71C3A6BB5 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 08:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.907
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.907 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.069, 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 bd4gtZ9PHcCq for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 08:24:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f177.google.com (mail-ew0-f177.google.com [209.85.219.177]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF5EA28C1CC for <mmox@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 08:24:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy25 with SMTP id 25so394216ewy.37 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 08:25:08 -0700 (PDT)
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:content-type; bh=ajYNbjAtGKlHJSOSBzd61pMG1L5+EsvS7VXVhVPIpYo=; b=GQZPTQbV8CsuLx1FRIWVWUK5NvPKNm9tqZWovCOBtxXT7AvyhqNq4Q/zWxV7BB5BIK /iZU6MjBAOtQ59o93qgtN5QNONxYFN7KvDamygOiM3pchJNLDocHDL+6PRTESlnXOZL5 zeT6hxeEtlNm2M9QWy9DBFd3O8/CuX9bE4Cjo=
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 :content-type; b=PvtQ1rrHQO77wirwfTNt7BvW8nxLkWdugusfcQv6aOb4mDVSJA2C364jxPpD2UdzrR TwNZxTJC4KUVx/TJSEqJcCqLIgbMl7CnLTvQxBRZzZMQzEgDLweKSI9qIqn1Radzt/dM fSwVgvlBkRe5RPx2RNkj4ZoNHDO/4pqtLmO/w=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.210.19.7 with SMTP id 7mr55149ebs.41.1236871508494; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 08:25:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <e0b04bba0903120735s5311a922ybbc40a30433166a3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e0b04bba0903120735s5311a922ybbc40a30433166a3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:25:08 +0000
Message-ID: <e0b04bba0903120825tf48f40bm615fc133c04c5d70@mail.gmail.com>
From: Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
To: MMOX-IETF <mmox@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0015174c34a2e58bc50464ed9697"
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 15:24:34 -0000

Lawson pointed out (in-world in SL) an important detail that I should have
mentioned explicitly:  the scenario was intended to illustrate OGP-based
interop *between diverse worlds* (which is an express claim for OGP, and
explicit in Jon's question).

Therefore I should have stated: * **"A, B and C do not run the same server
software"**.*

Thanks, Saijanai! :-)


Morgaine.









On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>wrote:

> The following VW interop scenario is posed to find answers to Jon's
> questions that I highlighted here<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg01112.html>
> .
>
>
> Consider 3 virtual worlds, A, B and C.  World A has an account for a client
> A1 associated with it, world B has an account for client B1, and C has an
> account for C1.  World A's server(s) are connected for interop to those of
> B, and B's server(s) are connected for interop to those of C.  A1 is
> initially connected only to A, B1 only to B, and C1 only to C.
>
> To simplify this scenario, I'm going to use "A1" to refer to many things:
> the client itself, its user, its associated account in world A, its
> agent/presence in any world, and its displayed avatar.  Use context to
> disambiguate them please. :-)
>
> A1 has an avatar wearing or carrying objects from world A.  A1 teleports
> from world A into a region in world B.  From B, A1 walks over transparently
> into a region in world C.  Within C, A1 purchases a dress C1D produced by
> the user C1, wears it, and obtains a landmark to its source.  A1 then walks
> or teleports back into world B and engages in polite conversation about
> interop of dress graphics with catwalk organizer B1.
>
> A1 then returns to A, notes that C1D looks beautiful in world A's lighting,
> decides that she wants another C1D, and teleports to that region of C (to
> which A is not connected) directly using the landmark.
>
> For bonus points, let A1 also buy from C1 an object C1S containing scripted
> behaviour, and transport it back to world A for use there.
>
>
> Please explain to the list how all these elements might work in OGP, from
> the perspective of protocol endpoints.
>
>
> Morgaine.
>
>