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

[Meadhbh Siobhan <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Dave CROCKER<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> Carlo Wood wrote:
>>
>>   I think that using "a virtual world"
>> is less confusing, and I'd rewrite the above paragraph as follows:
>>
>> Adjacent locations in a virtual world accessible by  this protocol may
>> be   explicitly   partitioned  into   "regions"   to  facilitate   the
>> computational  and communication load  balancing required  to simulate
>> the virtual  environment. Such a virtual world may consist  of regions
>> administered  by distinct organizations.         Though virtual worlds
>> may  be partitioned,  they  remain "un-sharded;"  all inhabitants  and
>> objects  in a  particular location  in  a virtual  world may  initiate
>> interaction with  all other inhabitants and objects  in that location;
>> and service  endpoint addresses  refer to at  most one  location.  The
>> state of  a virtual  world is independent  of the  client applications
>> that access it and may persist between user sessions.
>
> This reads well, with two exceptions:
>
>
> Minor:
>     Though virtual worlds may be partitioned
>     ->
>     Though a virtual world may  be partitioned
>
>

hmm... i thought we had changed that to "Though these virtual worlds
may be partitioned"

> Substantial:
>
>     The meaning and import of "un-sharded" is missing.  From the last time I
> asked about this, I gather the term is familiar in VW circles, but it sure
> isn't
> in the IETF or, I believe, anywhere outside /some/ database and /some/ or
> all VW
> environs.
>

the text reads:

"Though these virtual worlds may  be partitioned,  they  remain
"un-sharded;"  all inhabitants  and objects  in a  particular location
 in  a virtual  world may  initiate interaction with  all other
inhabitants and objects  in that location; and, service  endpoint
addresses  refer to at  most one  location."

the clause after "they remain un-sharded" is the definition we use for
sharded worlds. we could change this to:

"Though { these virtual worlds | a virtual world } may  be
partitioned,  they  remain "un-sharded;"  that is, all inhabitants
and objects  in a  particular location  in  a virtual  world may
initiate interaction with  all other inhabitants and objects  in that
location; and, service  endpoint addresses  refer to at  most one
location."

>     Note that the language, here, is saying that it is /not/ sharded.
> Jumping into a negative reference like this suggests that sharding is to be
> expected.  Is it?  Why?  Is reference to sharding essential for the charter?
>  Why?

we introduce the relationship between VWRAP region partitioning to
sharding, because sharding is well understood with a wider audience
than region partitioning. the intent is to further define region
partitioning.

>
>     So, this reduces down to two different issues.  One is a concept and the
> other is a vocabulary term.  If the concept is essential, what's some terse
> text that makes sense for the charter?  If the term is essential, marry it
> to that terse text.
>
> d/
>
> --
>
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>