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

[Suzy Deffeyes <[e-mail]>]

Meow Morgaine!

Not sure last email went thru ....

We've had some great input to the Charter, and now it feels like some
nitting on definitions.  I think the people that find the wording
clear are probably  just being quiet and not posting to the list, so I
am unsure I would claim it is a 'widespread' view that the Charter is
not clear.

For purposes of defining the scope, I think we are there.

I've been implementing the existing OGP spec in snowglobe, and I am
anxious to get more of the protocol designed.

Suzy Deffeyes/Pixel Gausman
IBM

On Monday, August 31, 2009, Morgaine <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Suzy!
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Suzy Deffeyes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> I
> think the Charter looks good, and I support moving forward with
> submitting this to the IETF.  I think it accurately describes the scope
> of what we want to do, and is clear in its description.
>
>
>
> We've just spent the last 10 days or longer trying to understand the wording and scope, without success.  That the charter is "clear in its description" is sadly not a widespread view.  This is why several of us are trying to get the terms defined in order to add the missing clarity.
>
> Note that this confusion is present despite the very extensive OGP background within the group.  For new readers of the charter, its meaning will be even less clear, if not completely obscure.
>
> In the absense of this understanding, it is not possible to say that the document "accurately describes the scope of what we want to do", since we don't know what it describes.  The scope is currently unknown to a significant number of participants.
>
> As the charter is clear to you, perhaps you could assist in the process of clarification by answering some of the recent questions made to the list?  I am sure that this would be widely appreciated.
>
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==============================
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 8:07 PM, Suzy Deffeyes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Infinity,
>
> I think the Charter looks good, and I support moving forward with submitting this to the IETF.  I think it accurately describes the scope of what we want to do, and is clear in its description.
>
> I am ready to move to working on the protocol and implementation. Let the interface definitions commence!
>
> Suzy Deffeyes / Pixel Gausman
> IBM
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Infinity Linden <[e-mail]> wrote:
> okay... here's what i think we've all agreed to. i've taken the
> liberty of using the VWRAP name since it seems to me we have consensus
> around that name.
>
> also note that i still have the [e-mail] email list in the
> charter text, since we don't have the VWRAP mailing list up yet.
>
> but the rest of it should be "correct" based on discussions. please
> look it over and tell me if i've missed something.
>
> -cheers
> -meadhbh
>
> Working Group Name:
>
>   Virtual Worlds Region Agent Protocol (VWRAP)
>
> Chairs:
>
>   TBD
>
> Area and Area Directors:
>
>   Applications Area
>
>   Lisa Dusseault <[e-mail]>
>   Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>
>
> Responsible Area Director:
>
>   TBD
>
> Mailing List:
>
>   [e-mail]
>   http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
> Description of Working Group:
>
> The working group will define the Virtual Worlds Region Agent Protocol
> (VWRAP) for  collaborative 3-dimensional virtual  worlds. The protocol
> permits  users  to  interact  with  each other  while  represented  as
> "avatars,"  or digital representations  of the  user. Within  a single
> virtual  world, avatars  exist in  at most  one location  in  a shared
> virtual  space. Conforming  client  applications use  the protocol  to
> manipulate and  move the  user's avatar, create  objects in  a virtual
> world, interact  with other users  and their surroundings  and consume
> and create media and information from sources inside and outside their
> virtual world.
>
> Adjacent locations  in virtual worlds 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 virtual  worlds may consist  of regions
> administered  by distinct organizations.  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
> state of  a virtual  world is independent  of the  client applications
> that access it and may persist between user sessions.
>
> Regions and  services implemented according to  the specifications may
> be deployed by separate  organizations with varying policies and trust
> domains.  The OGPX  protocols will  provide the  mechanisms  for these
> virtual world  services to interoperate, when permitted  by policy and
> shared trust  domains. To support the exegesis  of the specifications,
> the group  may define a  non-exhaustive set of  non-normative policies
> protocol participants may enforce.
>
> The protocol  should describe interaction semantics  for these virtual
> worlds, independent of  transport, leveraging existing standards where
> practical. It  should define interoperability  expectations for server
> to server  interactions as well as  client-server interactions. Though
> the  protocol  is  independent  of transport,  early  interoperability
> trials used HTTP(S) for non-real-time messages. The working group will
> define specific  features that must be replicated  in other transports
> and  will  define  the use  of  HTTP(S)  as  a transport  of  protocol
> messages.
>
> Foundational components of the protocol include the publication of:
>
>   *
>