Re: [mmox] IETF policy question
Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com> Thu, 26 March 2009 14:13 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 461963A6856 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.891
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.891 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.085, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, GB_I_LETTER=-2, 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 ILiBEjbdvbFX for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:13:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f165.google.com (mail-ew0-f165.google.com [209.85.219.165]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC0D03A6920 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:13:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy9 with SMTP id 9so583831ewy.37 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:14:20 -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:cc:content-type; bh=LGOI0IR8smQXkLSEiqx++YKsSscl4Eo4eodSFRsUOx0=; b=P57WmIJfloV+PsmCmmmC0YXoufQZK1RojY6ooL18BM7UHy+Hi4aVei7SFXvjpHI489 juZkx37hMJqpB13+LXTmKkNINw7WhvFZyAdFgLVs6SgbTqa9SVJRJnD4XX5H4+KJchR5 z0GON9tcvopn0Gw6cEBiPhi3SeWo1PVSvv6RY=
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 :cc:content-type; b=CylXIiHIPDXG9Ii6rW0NugsyaBQCVLGA1Gr49biAbe4Gl7zSfDrCcC32c9ScMLOd6x 9tCB4HAaM+6E4IfCyqs7ox+9rS3/eHr7oDjUkq8PUPxYWBUYqh0Zs3vLbslCzBnZCinF xa5hl/ro+GwBFzf0Yxh6LuyXUuL5a4eP6MFBw=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.210.17.14 with SMTP id 14mr689957ebq.40.1238076860370; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5f303cb80903251620k163ede14y38e8785d94a417b3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5f303cb80903251620k163ede14y38e8785d94a417b3@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:14:20 +0000
Message-ID: <e0b04bba0903260714v5ae65f06j47966999bce57a49@mail.gmail.com>
From: Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
To: Heiner Wolf <wolf.heiner@googlemail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0015174be6ea77902b0466063bcc"
Cc: mmox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mmox] IETF policy question
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, 26 Mar 2009 14:13:29 -0000
Heiner, your question presupposes that incompatibilities make it impossible to find common areas of interop, and you then ask what the IETF can do about it. I think that your premise does not reflect the actual situation, but only reflects that some parties have not been willing to build bridges so far, and just keep making position statements instead. If MMOX were an *engineering* team, the way ahead would be clear. We would break down the problem space into pieces based on the needs of many different worlds, and then we would find a model and protocol for decoupled services that is applicable to all the architectures involved. I would like to point out that the second letter of IETF stands for * Engineering*. Maybe the only advice needed from the IETF is that this group should try to use more engineering methodology and break down problems. If the preceding paragraph were our M.O., the difficulties would soon be disentangled and suitable solutions would appear quite quickly. Morgaine. On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Heiner Wolf <wolf.heiner@googlemail.com>wrote: > Hi, > > Assumed there are multiple systems with incompatible architecture, > each sophisticated and with it's own protocols. > Assumed that we as a WG do not know enough about the general problem space. > Assumed that there are sub-groups which know enough about their > problem and have working solutions. > > What would the IETF do? > 1. task one of the sub-groups to standardize one of the > protocol/architecture variants, although it might leave a large part > of the community out of the loop, while having at least a hope to > defeat fragmentation in the future > ...or... > 2. do not standardize at IETF level, which might be good for the > competition of ideas and allows the community to learn more about the > general problem space, but preserves fragmentation unless the market > cleans it up. > > I am really undecided, but there is probably BCP in the IETF. > > Best > -- > Dr. Heiner Wolf > wolf.heiner@gmail.com > www.wolfspelz.de > www.virtual-presence.org > _______________________________________________ > mmox mailing list > mmox@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox >
- Re: [mmox] IETF policy question Charles Krinke
- [mmox] IETF policy question Heiner Wolf
- Re: [mmox] IETF policy question Mystical Demina
- Re: [mmox] IETF policy question Heiner Wolf
- Re: [mmox] IETF policy question Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] IETF policy question Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] IETF policy question Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] IETF policy question Heiner Wolf
- Re: [mmox] IETF policy question Lisa Dusseault
- Re: [mmox] IETF policy question Marshall Eubanks
- Re: [mmox] IETF policy question Dave CROCKER