[mmox] A question for the moderator and MMOX chairs

"Mark P. McCahill" <mccahill@duke.edu> Thu, 26 February 2009 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <mccahill@duke.edu>
X-Original-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D89528C2AE for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 07:15:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.349
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GSbyl0V2a5Sj for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 07:15:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.duke.edu (smtp-03.oit.duke.edu []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A686B28C11A for <mmox@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 07:15:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.duke.edu (localhost.localdomain []) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 72E488172; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:15:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dyn-152-3-125-25.oit.duke.edu (dyn-152-3-125-25.oit.duke.edu []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.duke.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C0B08144; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:15:57 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <21354166-1CB0-4124-A46E-12F336CB955A@duke.edu>
From: "Mark P. McCahill" <mccahill@duke.edu>
To: mmox@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <e0b04bba0902251659x783a8829h3f0990fd8735c48d@mail.gmail.com>
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: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:15:55 -0500
References: <05E4C6F6-14A9-42AF-9314-A51F8DF0A7C3@lindenlab.com> <e0b04bba0902251659x783a8829h3f0990fd8735c48d@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
X-PMX-Version:, Antispam-Engine:, Antispam-Data: 2009.2.26.150143
Subject: [mmox] A question for the moderator and MMOX chairs
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 Feb 2009 15:15:39 -0000

Is it feasible to attempt to form two working groups?

Morgaine points out that there are essentially two camps in this  
mailing list - one focused on the AWG/OGP work and another interested  
in a broader vision for MMOX and suggests splitting the discussion.

David Levine has a strawman proposal for MMOX that is significantly  
different in intents and focus from the OGP proposal that was  
originally put forward for this group.

How are we going to reconcile this difference in approach?

On Feb 25, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Morgaine wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Infinity Meadhbh Hamrick <infinity@lindenlab.com 
> > wrote:
> 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.
> I suspect that this is precisely the source of many of the problems  
> that have preoccupied MMOX discussions across many threads.  Giving  
> OGP the IETF treatment and generating some very useful RFCs is an  
> admirable cause, an extension of AWG work, and would greatly advance  
> interop between SL-like worlds.
> Unfortunately, instead of forming an OGP group, MMOX was defined as  
> an interop group expressly targetted at providing interop across  
> many different virtual worlds and MMO technologies.  The name of the  
> group makes this clear, and the original statements from both co- 
> chairs endorse the broad view even more vividly.
> Clearly there is a disconnect between intent and presentation.
> In this much wider VW context, OGP can at most be one input to the  
> process, and the end result of a successful workgroup would probably  
> be nothing like OGP even if it incorporated some of the good ideas  
> from it.
> This is the heart of the matter.  The Linden goal as you describe it  
> above is one thing, but the IETF group was set up with a totally  
> different declared intent.
> I wonder if perhaps we could do both, and thus avoid the conflict:   
> separate OGP and MMOX workgroups.  An OGP workgroup would be an  
> excellent thing to work on, and as an AWG member I would certainly  
> like to help fill in the parts that OGP has not yet defined.  But a  
> MMOX group that targets the broader reaches of VW interop is also  
> highly worthwhile, and much more visionary, and valuable to many  
> more people.
> Morgaine.