Re: [ogpx] VWRAP Draft Charter: 2009 08 28 revision

[Kari Lippert <[e-mail]>]

This sounds like a good plan.

Kari


On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:27 AM,
Morgaine<[e-mail]> wrote:
> I support Carlo's request that we define the terms that we use before we use
> them.
>
> As Carlo's says, undefined terms should not be used in the charter or in the
> group name --- it introduces uncertainty and confusion.  I would add that
> even less should undefined terms appear in our protocol specifications,
> which are relatively precise documents of interest to implementors.  If we
> don't know what a virtual world is, the term should be abandoned in favour
> of one that we do understand.
>
> Carlo offers one way of defining the topological entities in our problem
> space, based on size and administration, which sounds quite viable.  A
> meaning of virtual world might be agreed in this way.
>
> As an alternative, I propose a simpler and much more flexible approach:
> define virtual worlds as anything that implements the required endpoints of
> the VWRAP protocol.  We do not need to know anything else about them.  This
> lets the people who actually design the virtual worlds decide what
> constitutes a virtual world.  The only thing that interests us is that these
> "virtual worlds" implement the VWRAP endpoints.
>
> This is highly workable in practice.  After all, Linden Lab knows that SL is
> a virtual world, they don't need it defined.  Likewise, the owners of OSgrid
> know that OSgrid is a virtual world too, they don't need it defined.  As a
> result, a definition of "virtual world" by an IETF workgroup will have
> little practical effect outside of the specifications, because the
> implementors will design their worlds as it suits them.  If they are to
> interoperate through VWRAP however, then both LL and OSgrid will ensure that
> they implement the protocol correctly, no matter their internal differences.
>
> Note that this is the approach taken in a large number of IETF protocols:
> the implementation behind the endpoint is just an implementation detail, and
> is of no consequence as long as it implements the protocol correctly.
> Precedent suggests that this is the right approach.
>
> I believe that this is simpler, more powerful, and much more flexible than
> defining "virtual world" on the basis of topology.  All we need to know is
> that VWRAP endpoints are available, and not what kind of entity actually
> implements them.
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ===================================
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:08 AM, Carlo Wood <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> I think that any effort to work on the final wording
>> should be stopped until we finally agree on what "virtual world" means...
>>
>> I understand that you don't want to define what virtual world means,
>> in which case you shouldn't use it at all in the charter and also
>> not in the protocol name (VWrap).
>>
>> There are several levels of 'locations' in an SL-like whatever:
>>
>> First, the words that are already in use by the community:
>>
>> 1) simulator
>> 2) estate
>> 3) region
>> 4) land
>> 5) island
>> 6) virtual world
>>
>> Then the locations that we need terms for to be able to even
>> TALK about them:
>>
>> A) A smallest partition
>> B) A collection of adjacent A's run by a single administration
>> C) A collection of adjecent B's run by different administrations (which
>> very likely use the same TOS etc)
>> D) A collection of C's that are not adjacent but still fall under the same
>> TOS etc.
>> E) A collection of D's that have totally different administrations and
>> possibly different TOS etc, but which interoperate.
>> F) The whole of all E's that do not interoperate, but still use VWRAP.
>> G) The rest that use the term "virtual world", but do not use VWRAP.
>>
>> MMOX and WoW is part of G. I consider that not relevant as it should be
>> clear by now what is part of G and what not.
>>
>> Meadhbh, do you disagree with my list(s)?
>> Anything you want to add, or change my rough definitions of things?
>>
>> Please don't reply with "we don't want to define this" :p
>> We NEED to define this, or we can't TALK about this!
>>
>> --
>> Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>
>>
>> PS I hope it should be clear by now: the problem we are having
>>   is that you call 'E' "a virtual world", while Morgaine, Kari,
>>   me and others want to call 'D' "virtual world". Moreover,
>>   you do as if D or E do not exist, so that we will not
>>   be able to talk about them separately later on :/
>>
>>   You might convince me to call 'E' "virtual world", but
>>   then we need a well defined term for 'D' in order to
>>   communicate about D, too.
>>
>>   In my previous post I proposed to use "Galaxy" for E.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ogpx mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>