Re: [ogpx] Tourist use case

[Vaughn Deluca <[e-mail]>]

Well, for what its worth, i would  :),  *Raises hand*

But I see this use case in the first place as a vehicle for our thinking,
and a way to spot implict assumptions that would limit the general usability
of VWRAP.

I think that just based on good design principles a strong argument can be
made for asset services that expose their interface, rather than keeping
them internal to the agent domain.
Especially since there is nothing to prevent a configuration that works
exactly as the current SL use case. So nothing  has to be sacrificed, yet a
much richer set of deployment patterns becomes possible.

-Vaughn





On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:16 AM, Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> also. just a show of hands. who's planning on implementing the tourist
> model?
>
> --
>   infinity linden (aka meadhbh hamrick)  *  it's pronounced "maeve"
>         http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Infinity_Linden
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 00:34, Vaughn Deluca <[e-mail]>
> 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_Design
> > and/or to the VWRAP wiki to document this possibility.
> > -Vaughn
> > _______________________________________________
> > ogpx mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
> >
> >
>