IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the Generic Client model

Kajikawa Jeremy <belxjander@gmail.com> Sun, 15 March 2009 08:09 UTC

Return-Path: <belxjander@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 EF5143A6974 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 01:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.339, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069, SARE_WEOFFER=0.3]
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 GTRC7SMAUWbz for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 01:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DB053A67E9 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 01:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 27so2612253wfd.31 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 01:09:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:to:cc :in-reply-to:references:disposition-notification-to:content-type :date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=MfZ8u19Jt45a4BWJRuXB+JZFoJJBmEFrVw5kSLtBZYY=; b=jBDKhfI0yY5ABjKF2f0eEPeVy/JuRLgMhjGrGi6YdJVyH0dqGqEhJmEw1wN/nYAz9x WlBEpbMV7J7o20JTc8sqbX7EZBaojA9Oqn+eMwnjjc9KHJ6SJ9Ok5jK5I68Fh+PDN3/y H/a8BkUyT7MSb3OM5Ed7vhC/xFjwaVu9v3qKg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references :disposition-notification-to:content-type:date:message-id :mime-version:x-mailer; b=loLDZwb8PvV5zG2pdVwvU++MQCnxKXc4bVV3ICs+Dsq5FxLOwqW5QyawSUlSbq1ZCF xh0HZmNgLN1sWMFSzfvgSw8RAOI8qSEhldDCrkW5Uqagch0o1wGgbBKIr4P+mTpW4UdS cf7DGGJc/TaB90mmumh1OeKXZ0TOEEYuL3JzU=
Received: by 10.143.30.2 with SMTP id h2mr1515034wfj.160.1237104594913; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 01:09:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?10.2.1.3? (p3159-ipbfp201tottori.tottori.ocn.ne.jp [122.21.102.159]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 24sm8772822wff.42.2009.03.15.01.09.52 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 15 Mar 2009 01:09:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kajikawa Jeremy <belxjander@gmail.com>
To: Charles Krinke <charles.krinke@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <f0b9e3410903141756p2d4d7324y3fa0283d87367029@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e0b04bba0903120735s5311a922ybbc40a30433166a3@mail.gmail.com> <49B934B9.3080408@gmail.com> <49B940DF.8040009@lindenlab.com> <e0b04bba0903130451v2d33f9ebxfa3b337513bf286c@mail.gmail.com> <49BB0C46.8070809@gmail.com> <e0b04bba0903140305ocdbef86kcec140371dabf00b@mail.gmail.com> <49BC08DC.2010503@gmail.com> <f0b9e3410903141756p2d4d7324y3fa0283d87367029@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-gdqW92+eK6tRuIMdXKcX"
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 08:35:56 +0900
Message-Id: <1237073756.5408.1478.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.4
Cc: MMOX-IETF <mmox@ietf.org>, Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the Generic Client model
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: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 08:09:15 -0000

I agree with Charles in this... the more choice we offer the more will
be adoptable
 in one manner or another...

I see OGP for the Client<->Environment connection and
 LESS as being the Server<->Server connection.

I dont see these directly competing but actually becoming to *require*
the other
 so what makes them directly competitive?

just my current semi-ignorant view of things...
  Jeremy 

On Sat, 2009-03-14 at 16:56 -0800, Charles Krinke wrote:
> As long as this group adopts ports and protocols that do not preclude
> OGP, HyperGrid, MXP or other, I see no reason why LESS could not
> become viable.
> 
> As we know, it will be the users of our virtual worlds technologies
> that will ultimately determine the viability (or lack thereof) of
> interoperability. 
> 
> It seems to me that concentrating on a flexible enough protocol to
> allow all the ideas described (and more) to bloom is a reasonable
> solution.
> 
> At the very least, there need to be two competing protocols, should
> this group feel bound for more definition to allow the users and the
> market to decide what is good or not.
> 
> But, my feeling is flexibility to allow all the ideas and more
> presented makes a compelling argument.
> 
> -- 
> Charles Krinke
> OpenSim Core Developer
> OSGrid Director
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> mmox@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email