IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ogpx] Updated deployment and trust draft posted

Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com> Sat, 06 March 2010 16:23 UTC

Return-Path: <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com>
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 C0C453A8D3B for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 08:23:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.368
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.368 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.232, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 tNoLjnlSojz6 for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 08:23:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pz0-f176.google.com (mail-pz0-f176.google.com [209.85.222.176]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C99CD3A8ABB for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Sat, 6 Mar 2010 08:23:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pzk6 with SMTP id 6so316928pzk.29 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:23:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Q8gznCU8swSvPBmWSnEzHj1d2vSrfzvv/k99MiEygAw=; b=LNoQ+YhMo2zVwk+8/gbPxNrG2eP/xhJTLNYMUldbqEkuF3W2FLqdoz1tAPjhYymhQB wxxPVjRDs0FFS8Qw8RYsZFzRPHmB1l8bxqCnDp4EVnUJYSCszfPaMqulJ5OT50chQwgw i1Stye5AehUAc2kG5bREGzpQGx4T2Bcf7FFto=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=ap7u4Qd/o1TsS0yvxOYNJBtJ1AHYhSSs/Fr8msEBBLNIxrZOqvMmDa1T/H3AUX9fKY VHCBU0FXs/N4mK+NLFZH406QLgmHj/ThpBSyAD3Ohjnhh0lqzZ8K4vIoUl2Lk6NpgWF3 Wp3tgpRdeKnz1IpMdVpaCTGxMXD9mK9k8DD6s=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.143.26.14 with SMTP id d14mr1703762wfj.59.1267892629348; Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:23:49 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20100306132508.GA24621@alinoe.com>
References: <OFE468F9B5.25216572-ON852576CD.0053ADC1-852576CD.0053E11E@us.ibm.com> <OF7F0480B9.5C99B16B-ON852576CD.00623CB9-852576CD.006335DE@us.ibm.com> <e0b04bba1002180129if2eeabv5eb7f7db76bfaf1d@mail.gmail.com> <6c9fcc2a1002180918p2bf40959v32a1163848c76717@mail.gmail.com> <20100219141252.GA16509@alinoe.com> <b8ef0a221002190817q1131fdf0v87c4b48f62839baa@mail.gmail.com> <20100221105631.GA32748@alinoe.com> <OF985E62D1.9C6EC6C9-ON852576D4.005FCAC1-852576D4.006031EE@us.ibm.com> <3a880e2c1002241115w7fcb906di208f8c3eb8aac0ec@mail.gmail.com> <20100306132508.GA24621@alinoe.com>
From: Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:23:29 -0800
Message-ID: <b325928b1003060823xc37cbcfka5c1811494b3e7e8@mail.gmail.com>
To: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick)" <infinity@lindenlab.com>, ogpx@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ogpx] Updated deployment and trust draft posted
X-BeenThere: ogpx@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <ogpx.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ogpx>
List-Post: <mailto:ogpx@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Mar 2010 16:23:52 -0000

kk. thx for the feedback.

<joke>
maybe i'll edit the docs to define &USERAGENT; and &CLIENTAPPLICATION;
entities and replace all references of "user agent" and "client
application with them. then if we decide we want to use the term
"client application" for both, we just have to edit one line.
</joke>

--
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * OhMeadhbh@gmail.com



On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 5:25 AM, Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> wrote:
> Sorry for the late reply, but I couldn't find much time lately,
>
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:15:02AM -0800, Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick) wrote:
>> in a related issue. we use the term "client application" for an app that
>> accesses services. the most visible client application is the one that renders
>> the virtual world for the user. i think this kind of application is
>> traditionally called a "user agent" in other IETF protocols. so...
>>
>> question : does it make sense to introduce the concept of a "user agent" as the
>> client application that is intended to have direct interaction with the user?
>> i think it would be good to explain that "clients" or "client applications" do
>> not always have to be "user agents." if so, lemme modify the intro doc to
>> reflect it.
>
> I don't think rendering or having interaction with a human has anything to do
> with VWRAP, I'd define a "user agent" as "end point"; in theory, such an end
> point could be not the application that renders, it could be bot that has
> no rendering or human interaction at all.
>
> I'm ok with still using the word "user" in "user agent", but some clarification
> is indeed necessary then. On the other hand, I have no problem understanding
> "client application" at all. The use of "user agent" in it's place seems
> only confusing to me.
>
> --
> Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list (VWRAP working group)
> ogpx@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email