Re: [ogpx] Tourist use case

I could not agree more!

On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 7:26 PM, David W Levine <dwl@us.ibm.com> wrote:

>
> Keep in mind the model separates mechanism from policy. The mechanism will
> allow it, how people define policies will determine how easily assets flow
> across the extended grid. My personal guess is that we will end up with some
> sets of assets which flow very broadly across a lot of grids, but it will
> take time for this to settle down. I also equally expect that we will see
> lots of  clusters of walled gardens by policy, for various reasons, and that
> assets from these gardens will live within them. My goal for the
> specifications  to support this range of use cases, and to focus on the
> mechanisms, and keep debates as to which policy is appropriate off this
> list. (Enable the policy choices, and let the real world determine which
> policies are successful)
>
> - David
> ~ Zha
>
>
>  *Vaughn Deluca <vaughn.deluca@gmail.com>*
> Sent by: ogpx-bounces@ietf.org
>
> 10/18/2009 11:31 AM
>   To
> lenglish5@cox.net  cc
> Meadhbh Hamrick <meadhbh.siobhan@gmail.com>om>, ogpx@ietf.org
>  Subject
> Re: [ogpx] Tourist use case
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Lawson English <*lenglish5@cox.net*<lenglish5@cox.net>>
> wrote:
> Vaughn Deluca wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Lawson English <*lenglish5@cox.net*<lenglish5@cox.net><mailto:
> *lenglish5@cox.net* <lenglish5@cox.net>>> wrote:
>
>    Meadhbh Hamrick wrote:
>
>        but didn't we say that we were going to focus on "second
>        life-like"
>        worlds in this WG? isn't that why it was formed? shouldn't the
>        tourist
>        model be an effort of the MMOX group? i thought that was the
>        reason we
>        kept the MMOX mailing list up, so work could continue on that
>        type of
>        virtual world.
>
>        -meadhbh/infinity
>
>
>    It seems to me that the MOST touristy mode we will ever see is the
>    free-for-all from the original OGP test where
>    simple TP and naught else was supported.
>
>
> I find that a deeply depressing thought.  I would *really* hope that at
> least  transfer of free to copy assets will also be possible.
>
>
> Well, me too. I was merely pointing out that "tourism" was built into the
> system from the start, so to suggest that tourism was MMOX
> rather than VRAM was a false dichotomy. We already have an example of the
> "most touristy" mode possible and things will be built
> *on top of* it. The idea that few vendors would support it misses the fact
> that it is the _de facto_ model that everything else is built on.
>
> Now, tourism with non-SL-compatible worlds is certainly an MMOX issue, but
> tourism is inherent in ANY interop scenario, period.
>
> It's just the state of NULL trust. Whether NULL trust is allowed is a
> policy issue, but its inherent in the nature of the system.
>
>
> Lawson
> Mmmm, yes, "tourist" was badly chosen. But somehow i got the impression we
> were heading towards a system were assets would only be available from the
> Asset server of the world  currently visited, so you would need to either
> duplicate assets to different servers to have access, or just live with the
> fact that in each visited world you have a different set of assets, like
> what we have now when going to OSGrid.  Seems I was a bit too pessimistic.
>
> Anyhow, i realised i need read some more to make a meaningful contribution
> here. Also without the new versions of the draft up its hard to discuss
> anything. So I will take a pause and study  the backgound documents in some
>  more dept.
>
> -Vaughn
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> ogpx@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>