Re: [ogpx] OGPX WG draft charter, 2009-08-19 revision

that works too. the only nit i have is that "organization" should
probably be plural.

and, i would use the phrase "the protocol defined by this group" since
that's what we use elsewhere in the draft. okay. so that was two nits.

and, should Services be capitalized? okay. amongst the nits i have are ...

so i think something like:

"Regions and services implemented according to the specifications may
be deployed by separate organizations with varying policies and trust
domains. The protocol defined by this group will provide the
mechanisms for these virtual world services to interoperate, when
permitted by policy and shared trust domains."

-cheers
-meadhbh

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Dickson, Mike (ISS
Software)<mike.dickson@hp.com> wrote:
> From: ogpx-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ogpx-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Joshua Bell
> Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 11:11 AM
> To: ogpx@ietf.org
>
> Subject: Re: [ogpx] OGPX WG draft charter, 2009-08-19 revision
>
> How about a tweak:
>
> Regions and Services implemented according to the specifications may be
> deployed by separate organization 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.
>
> I like this since it defines “services” as those related to VW hosting.  It
> also will require that the protocol address how interoperation happens when
> policy does permit it.  That’s at the core of what I see others asking for.
> And I agree without that OGPX is far less interesting.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> ogpx@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>