Return-Path: X-Original-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25F8228C134 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:10:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.795 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.795 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.485, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_FWDLOOK=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UCHN-cIq29BR for ; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:10:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E7D33A8538 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:10:27 -0800 (PST) Received: by wyb40 with SMTP id 40so1550219wyb.31 for ; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:10:25 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.85.2 with SMTP id t2mr3286738wee.172.1267474225127; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 12:10:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:10:25 -0800 Message-ID: From: Joshua Bell To: ogpx@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6db2b15f362060480c2d694 Subject: Re: [ogpx] Draft work on Foundation and Type System X-BeenThere: ogpx@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Virtual Worlds and the Open Grid Protocol List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:10:31 -0000 --0016e6db2b15f362060480c2d694 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:56 AM, David W Levine wrote: > > > ... and the (independent?) axis of "does this need to be > > standardized at the VWRAP level at all?" > > > The answer to the later, is yes if you ask me. If we can't describe > how the regions speak to the rest of the world, we're not actually > going to have interop, we're either going to have insanely painful hand-off > between clients, or an informal, non specified set of rules everyone has to > follow. > > Oops - what I wrote was unclear. To avoid confusion, let me clarify: by "does this need to be standardized?", I meant the following three closely linked ideas: - Does this individual message/set of related messages even make sense in an interop standard? For example, the current protocol has a content transfer system layered over UDP. I would speculate that VWRAP would use plain old HTTP rather than (say) attempting to recreate the current system as LLSD-over-EventQueue-over-HTTP! - As above, but there may be parts of the protocol where might agree to replace detailed, special-case messaging with generic functionality - for example, as Linden has done recently, replacing a whole sub-protocol surrounding search queries and results with "here's the URL of a Web page". In which case, the standard may include that such a URL is expected to exist, but nothing beyond that. - And to be clear, by "be standardized" I did not mean "rubber stamp what's in a legacy protocol", but the overall process to design and document forward-looking, inter-operable versions. Discussing this face-to-face might prove beneficial. :) Joshua --0016e6db2b15f362060480c2d694 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:56 AM, David W Levine = <dwl@us.ibm.com&= gt; wrote:

> ... and the (independent?) = axis of "does this need to be
> standardized at the VWRAP level at all?"
> =C2=A0
The answer to the later, is yes if you ask m= e. If we can't describe
how the regions speak to the rest of the world, we= 're not actually
going to have interop, we're either going to h= ave insanely painful hand-off
between clients, or an informal, non specified set of rules everyone has to
follow.


Oops - wha= t I wrote was unclear.=C2=A0

To avoid confusion, l= et me clarify: by "does this need to be standardized?", I meant t= he following three closely linked ideas:
  • Does this individual message/set of related messages even make= sense in an interop standard? For example, the current protocol has a cont= ent transfer system layered over UDP. I would speculate that VWRAP would us= e plain old HTTP rather than (say) attempting to recreate the current syste= m as LLSD-over-EventQueue-over-HTTP!
  • As above, but there may be parts of the protocol where might agree to r= eplace detailed, special-case messaging with generic functionality - for ex= ample, as Linden has done recently, replacing a whole sub-protocol surround= ing search queries and results with "here's the URL of a Web page&= quot;. In which case, the standard may include that such a URL is expected = to exist, but nothing beyond that.
  • And to be clear, by "be standardized" I did not mean "ru= bber stamp what's in a legacy protocol", but the overall process t= o design and document forward-looking, inter-operable versions.
Discussing this face-to-face might prove beneficial. :)

=
Joshua

--0016e6db2b15f362060480c2d694--