Re: [ogpx] +1 on the charter (was: RE: An example to show the problems with defining an OGPX/VWRAP virtual world)

[Suzy Deffeyes <[e-mail]>]

+1 as well. Muchos thanks to all who commented and provided input to the draft.

Suzy Deffeyes
IBM


On Wednesday, September 2, 2009, Infinity Linden <[e-mail]> wrote:
> it should probably go without saying that i +1 the charter, but for
> completeness sake, let me just say...
>
> +1 on the charter
>
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Dan Olivares<[e-mail]> wrote:
>> + 1 on the charter also
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Morgaine<[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> +1 John.
>>>
>>> I'll try to keep the nil trust domain use case in focus before us as the
>>> work proceeds, and hopefully the periodic syncs with Cable Beach features
>>> will merge in fine when you can dedicate time to it.
>>>
>>> Thanks for that input. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Morgaine.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ===================================
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Hurliman, John <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You have to start somewhere. It seems like the core contributors to VWRAP
>>>> are primarily interested in the use case of explicit trust domains, so they
>>>> will be in a good position to carefully think through this use case and
>>>> create a strong spec for it. Asking someone to spend any significant amount
>>>> of effort on a use case that they have no demonstrated need for will get you
>>>> a poorly though through spec at best. The explicit trust domain work that
>>>> VWRAP is focusing on also does not preclude other groups from focusing more
>>>> closely on the nil trust domain use case. That’s the domain that my work
>>>> (Intel’s Cable Beach) is primarily interested in, and so far I feel that
>>>> Intel’s work and VWRAP’s plans have nicely paralleled each other. With some
>>>> effort, hopefully they will be able to merge in the future.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is why I don’t have any strong feelings on the specific wording of
>>>> the charter. The primary contributors to VWRAP know what they are working
>>>> on, and the capabilities (no pun intended) of the final product will speak
>>>> louder than the original charter. Although there is always room for more
>>>> closely defining your goals and requirements, I’m in favor of a +1 on the
>>>> current charter and moving on to the next step. I can’t personally commit
>>>> any development effort to VWRAP work at this time, but I will continue to
>>>> periodically sync Intel’s Cable Beach work with the VWRAP work and aim for a
>>>> merging of features in the future.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>>>> Morgaine
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 7:27 AM
>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [ogpx] An example to show the problems with defining an
>>>> OGPX/VWRAP virtual world
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Magnus' interesting analysis effectively reaches the same conclusion that
>>>> various people reached in MMOX.  I wrote a short summary of it back then --
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg01307.html .  Trust
>>>> agreements will not build the metaverse, but only balkanize it.
>>>>
>>>> In the end, the only trust domain likely to bloom explosively in the way
>>>> that the Internet and the web did is the nil trust domain, so all this
>>>> emphasis on trust agreements is largely immaterial to the worldwide spread
>>>> of virtual worlds.  Trust agreements on a global scale become completely
>>>> meaningless, as no trust is actually carried.  Schneier's point about
>>>> "security theater" applies here completely.
>>>>
>>>> Fortunately, as David Levine has said a few times, trust agreement
>>>> technology does not preclude nil trust, so we can work with this.  However,
>>>> it wil