Re: [ogpx] Draft work on Foundation and Type System

ogpx-bounces@ietf.org wrote on 03/01/2010 02:47:14 PM:

> [image removed] 
> 
> Re: [ogpx] Draft work on Foundation and Type System
> 
> Joshua Bell 
> 
> to:
> 
> ogpx
> 
> 03/01/2010 02:47 PM
> 
> Sent by:
> 
> ogpx-bounces@ietf.org
> 
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:04 AM, David W Levine <dwl@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> There is the question of whether *some* 
> of the current UDP traffic "Take two steps forward" "Rotate this 
> prim 5 degrees" again models exactly as posts on a REST resources or
> something different.  
> 
> FYI, while it's not going to be fully baked, in prep for the "What's
> not in VWRAP" discussion I want to have in Anaheim I'm going through
> the Linden "legacy protocol" to populate categories of messages:
> Messages with request/response semantics
> Messages with lossy streaming semantics
> Messages with notification semantics
> ... 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. 


> There is also a small set of operations which probably fall close to
> the "certified http" model Which Linden was working on a while back,
> where there is a very strong need to ensure close to ACID behavior. 
> 
> Excellent point! I should add that to the list of categories.
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> ogpx@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx