[mmox] taxonomy of topics
Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity) <infinity@lindenlab.com> Tue, 24 February 2009 16:07 UTC
Return-Path: <infinity@lindenlab.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 A8A1128B23E for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:07:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.508
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.091, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 1HMJO9tsAYPT for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:07:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tammy.lindenlab.com (tammy.lindenlab.com [64.154.223.128]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6AF73A6934 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:07:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.10] (dsl-63-249-112-43.cruzio.com [63.249.112.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tammy.lindenlab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A98E43DBC44D for <mmox@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:08:05 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <05E4C6F6-14A9-42AF-9314-A51F8DF0A7C3@lindenlab.com>
From: Meadhbh Hamrick <infinity@lindenlab.com>
To: mmox@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:08:04 -0800
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
Subject: [mmox] taxonomy of topics
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 16:07:47 -0000
so... what started as a pleasant little proposal to take our (the awg's) pleasant little protocol (ogp) kick it around in public (the mmox mailing list) and potentially generate some RFCs from it seems to have spawned a number of discussions. _all_ of the discussions are interesting, but perhaps not all of them are germane to the proposed task. so i ask.. is it appropriate to limit the discussion here to the MMOX Charter, LLSD, OGP and HyperGrid with occasional reference to the IETF IPR Disclosure Policy? to be sure... we _are_ in the stage where the charter is important to discuss... but i'm just wondering... and these questions are here to spark _conversation_, not radical debate. there are rational answers, pro and con, to each of these questions and teasing them out is important... * why would we care about HLA, DIS or IEEE-1278? they're already standardized. (though understanding that the structure of something like OGP differs from the structure of these protocols _is_ important.) * why do we care about OLIVE, which is a proprietary protocol with a single implementation? * why do we care about MXP whose apparent dependence on another protocol with unclear IPR encumbrance gives some people on this list the willies. so the questions i pose are... * pursuit of which of these topics brings us to our goal of an interoperable virtual worlds? * what does it mean to be interoperable? * must we have early agreement on all topics before we move forward with any component? * OGP (Open Grid Protocol) * should OGP be named something else? * how do we do the event queue? (COMET? Bayeux? RHTTP? Long Poll?) * where do we stuff permissions in this model? * OGP/Teleport is not HyperGrid * LLSD * why is LLSD different from XDR? ASN.1? Google ProtocolBuffers? * 128 bit integers? good enough? * should LLSD be named something else? * XML serialization * maps are too much like apple plists in the XML serialization. * MMOX Charter * we should rename everything * we should abandon interoperability in favor of general agreement of model * IETF * Virtual Worlds in General * Previously Established Protocols * HLA, DIS, IEEE-1278 and related protocols * OLIVE * MXP? * VRML * Representation of virtual objects * meshes vs. prims * interaction models for virtual objects * Intellectual Property Regimes for Virtual Worlds * Creative Commons (awesome gateway to free culture or the ultimate embodiment of evil in the noosphere?) * DRM (the only way i'll trust you with my content or the ultimate embodiment of evil in the noosphere?) * permissions regime * MPEG-21? * must we mandate the SL-style c/m/t permission?
- [mmox] taxonomy of topics Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)
- Re: [mmox] taxonomy of topics Suzy Deffeyes
- Re: [mmox] taxonomy of topics Hurliman, John
- Re: [mmox] taxonomy of topics Veikko Eeva
- Re: [mmox] taxonomy of topics Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] taxonomy of topics Christian Scholz
- Re: [mmox] taxonomy of topics Kajikawa Jeremy
- Re: [mmox] taxonomy of topics Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] taxonomy of topics Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] taxonomy of topics Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] taxonomy of topics Dan Olivares
- Re: [mmox] taxonomy of topics Jon Watte
- [mmox] A question for the moderator and MMOX chaiā¦ Mark P. McCahill