Re: [ogpx] Tourist use case

Keep in mind the model separates mechanism from policy. The mechanism will 
allow it, how people define policies will determine how easily assets flow 
across the extended grid. My personal guess is that we will end up with 
some sets of assets which flow very broadly across a lot of grids, but it 
will take time for this to settle down. I also equally expect that we will 
see lots of  clusters of walled gardens by policy, for various reasons, 
and that assets from these gardens will live within them. My goal for the 
specifications  to support this range of use cases, and to focus on the 
mechanisms, and keep debates as to which policy is appropriate off this 
list. (Enable the policy choices, and let the real world determine which 
policies are successful)

- David
~ Zha 

Vaughn Deluca <vaughn.deluca@gmail.com> 
Sent by: ogpx-bounces@ietf.org
10/18/2009 11:31 AM

To
lenglish5@cox.net
cc
Meadhbh Hamrick <meadhbh.siobhan@gmail.com>om>, ogpx@ietf.org
Subject
Re: [ogpx] Tourist use case

On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Lawson English <lenglish5@cox.net> wrote:
Vaughn Deluca wrote:

On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Lawson English <lenglish5@cox.net 
<mailto:lenglish5@cox.net>> wrote:

   Meadhbh Hamrick wrote:

       but didn't we say that we were going to focus on "second
       life-like"
       worlds in this WG? isn't that why it was formed? shouldn't the
       tourist
       model be an effort of the MMOX group? i thought that was the
       reason we
       kept the MMOX mailing list up, so work could continue on that
       type of
       virtual world.

       -meadhbh/infinity

   It seems to me that the MOST touristy mode we will ever see is the
   free-for-all from the original OGP test where
   simple TP and naught else was supported.

I find that a deeply depressing thought.  I would *really* hope that at 
least  transfer of free to copy assets will also be possible. 

Well, me too. I was merely pointing out that "tourism" was built into the 
system from the start, so to suggest that tourism was MMOX
rather than VRAM was a false dichotomy. We already have an example of the 
"most touristy" mode possible and things will be built
*on top of* it. The idea that few vendors would support it misses the fact 
that it is the _de facto_ model that everything else is built on.

Now, tourism with non-SL-compatible worlds is certainly an MMOX issue, but 
tourism is inherent in ANY interop scenario, period.

It's just the state of NULL trust. Whether NULL trust is allowed is a 
policy issue, but its inherent in the nature of the system.

Lawson
Mmmm, yes, "tourist" was badly chosen. But somehow i got the impression we 
were heading towards a system were assets would only be available from the 
Asset server of the world  currently visited, so you would need to either 
duplicate assets to different servers to have access, or just live with 
the fact that in each visited world you have a different set of assets, 
like what we have now when going to OSGrid.  Seems I was a bit too 
pessimistic.

Anyhow, i realised i need read some more to make a meaningful contribution 
here. Also without the new versions of the draft up its hard to discuss 
anything. So I will take a pause and study  the backgound documents in 
some  more dept. 

-Vaughn
_______________________________________________
ogpx mailing list
ogpx@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx