Re: [ogpx] Tourist use case

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

Vaughn,

You've correctly represented my MMOX post, thanks!  (
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg01392.html )

I must stress, as you did yourself, that the "*Free Worlds Tourist*" use
case which I described there in MMOX is *different * to the simpler "tourist
use case" which we have been discussing here.  It's great that you're
shining some light into this corner.  Hopefully this will allow us to affix
labels to the various cases to keep our discussions simple yet clear.

Before addressing your actual point, I should first state that I consider it
unfortunate that the "*Free Worlds Tourist*" use case is not considered an
integral part of VWRAP requirements --- this is a practical conclusion on my
part.  On the basis of our discussions so far, I think it would be too much
to expect that a mode of operation offering such a high degree of freedom of
travel and of avatar appearance would achieve rough consensus in the group,
given that its considerable distance from Second Life policies would almost
certainly lead to intense opposition.  This is not a battle I wish to fight.

As a practical matter then, "*Free Worlds Tourist*" as defined above is not
a use case that I am pushing in VWRAP at this time, despite it being
entirely compatible with the SL/Opensim model and hence deserving
inclusion.  I'm simply going to express regret that it is likely to be a
bridge too far on political grounds and leave it at that.  I would wish it
were otherwise.

With that disclaimer, I'll answer your point about our more constrained
"tourist use case" (which perhaps needs a better name), this being a much
easier target but still a very useful one.  I will however answer it in the
immediately following post, because I don't want to get this confused with
the "*Free Worlds Tourist*" case that I described in MMOX.


Morgaine.





=====================================

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Vaughn Deluca <[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

> The "tourist use case" has been brought up several times, but the concept
> is not always used in the same way, and needs to be more precisely defined.
>
> Morgaines original definition of the "Free Worlds Tourist use case" in
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg01392.html
> mentions two characteristics:
>
> 1. Travel requires no prior arrangement.
>  2. Your avatar is defined by you, not by the target worlds, and it
> appears in those worlds with no prior arrangement.
>
> Point 1 is only dependent the policies of the users AD as well as that of
> the destination region. It is not dependent on the protocol, so in principle
> solved.
>
> The second point is actually extending the SL use case beyond what is in my
> view needed for a basic tourist model (and that is why the post was in the
> mmox list).  In my view  a basic tourist use case has two main
> characteristics:
>
> 1.  Travel requires no prior arrangement.
>         2.  Agent domains can use external asset services
>
> Point 2 requires that assets services expose an interface (in the current
> ogp description of the AD that is not the case).
>
> Note that this models does *not* assumes that all assets in a services
> should be useable by the agent in all domains, but only that an interface is
> available so an asset service in one domain can be contacted by another AD.
>
> I think exposing the asset service interface directly is essential for
> meaningful interop.  I think it would benefit the discussion if some
> diagrams were added to http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Structural_Designand/or to the VWRAP wiki to document this possibility.
>
> -Vaughn
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>