[ogpx] why we might want to move things into different docs

[Infinity Linden <[e-mail]>]

so it seems to me we have a lot of freedom about what topics get put
in which docs. now that we have rough consensus on the scope of the
work, it _should_ be relatively easy to come up with a list of "high
level topics" including (but not limited to) LLSD, user
authentication, teleporting between regions, moving your avatars,
etc., etc.

when we have this list, we can then decide which topics get covered by
which document. from what i hear from experienced IETF peeps is that
we should make our best guess about what topics go into which
document, but if we later discover we should of put in an extra topic
or two or that we have to move topics between docs, it's not the end
of the world, and as long as there's general agreement on the list,
it's not a difficult thing to do.

so i thought it was useful just to mention some criteria for why
certain topics should go in certain documents...

please feel free to ignore or comment at your leisure. i'm just kinda
curious what people think.

* contextual closeness - topics that are similar should go in the same
document. for example, you would expect discussions about how to send
commands to move an avatar around on the ground to be in the same doc
as commands to get the avatar to start flying.

* schedule - are there things we all agree we want to work on sooner
rather than later? i would argue that we should have radical agreement
on the intro, abstract type system and foundations docs before
thinking we can finish other docs.

* extension - are there things we know we intentionally want to
extend, or make it easier for other people to extend? (like the asset
or avatar formats or transport bindings?) maybe it makes sense to have
documents describing avatar formats be in a different doc from asset
formats or entity descriptors because people may want to extend each
of these things independently.

any other criteria for figuring out what topics go in what document?

-cheers,
-meadhbh