Re: [ogpx] VWRAP Draft Charter: 2009 08 28 revision

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 3:46 AM, Meadhbh Siobhan
<[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

> i like where you're going with this, but i have to say, i really think
> we should use the term "virtual world" only in a non-normative manner.
> the term is simultaneously evocative as an descriptive term and a
> lightning rod for disagreement when we attempt to define it.
>


This has nothing to do with whether "virtual world" is used normatively or
not.  It has to do with whether our terminology allows us to discuss the
problem space, and then later whether it allows us to propose solutions that
work within that problem space.

Our problem space contains *multiple virtual world*s which need to be able
to interoperate, fully independent worlds employing a common VWRAP protocol
for interop but differing in absolutely everything else.  We need to be able
to refer to those worlds because they are first-class entities in our
problem space, and your terminology prevents us from doing so.

The suggestion that making "virtual world" normative would lead to
disagreement misses the point that it is the highly non-standard use of
"virtual world" to mean "the communicating parties" that has led to this
disagreement in the first place.  Indeed, we retained the "VW"  in "VWRAP"
because we agreed that it has a generally accepted meaning.

And it does.  In these days of interplanetary travel, the meaning of "world"
is quite universal, and communication between worlds is an established
physical process.  The virtual analogues in "VW" and "VW interop" have
exactly the same semantics.

There are no disagreements at the implementation level about this because
each implementor determines individually whether they are building a virtual
world or not.  LL knows that SL is a virtual world, and the owners of OSgrid
know that OSgrid is a virtual world, and so will GALACTICuniverse and so
will DRAGONSworld.  The only thing that matters to us is whether those
worlds employ VWRAP, and if they do so then interop between them is clearly
in scope.

Attempting to define "virtual world" prescriptively would of course create
disagreement, but that is *neither intended nor required here*.  We are not
defining what worlds are like, but only how worlds communicate --- the only
definition of "virtual world" that is required to enable cross-world interop
is *as an endpoint of a communication*.

Specifically, our terminology must be able to handle "avatar A teleports
from region R1 in world W1 to region R2 in world W2".  The virtual worlds W1
and W2 are key entities in our problem space because they are sets of
regions and services which can be either disjoint or intersect in one or
more elements.  Those sets are crucially important to everyone concerned, as
they define the identity and flavour and ownership and policies that make
each virtual world distinct and interesting in its own right.

Your redefinition of "virtual world" no longer allows us to discuss those
endpoint worlds as distinct entities.  When we cannot talk about world W1
and world W2, this presents a near-total impediment to delivering
cross-world interop between them.

Perhaps the question should be turned around.  Why do the current OGP
documents redefine "virtual world" contrary to common usage and seek to bar
multiple virtual worlds from the discussion space?


Morgaine.






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

On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 3:46 AM, Meadhbh Siobhan
<[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

> i like where you're going with this, but i have to say, i really think
> we should use the term "virtual world" only in a non-normative manner.
> the term is simultaneously evocative as an descriptive term and a
> lightning rod for disagreement when we attempt to define it.
>
> david's work on deployment patterns should definitely be included
> somewhere. i think it _would_ help people new to the group to
> understand what we're working on, and it seems like what you're asking
> is to talk about deployment patterns. some people might shy away from
> the term "model" (myself included) in favor of "pattern" since the
> latter admits more abstraction to the process.
>
> how 'bout, "Deployment patterns for describing the use of the protocol
> for interoperation between multiple region/agent domains and
> services."
>
> -cheers
> -meadhbh
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Morgaine<[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > This charter still does not mention in plain English that the group and
> the
> > protocol will address cross-world interop.
> >
> > It is not enough to claim that cross-world interop is included through
> lack
> > of explicit exclusion.  That can lead to disputes about what was intended
> to
> > be in scope and what was not.  The charter needs to express the group's
> > scope clearly, that is its purpose.
> >
> > What's more, because cross-world interop is the area of greatest
> complexity
> > in this work, it needs to be prominent as a deliverable.  Currently there
> is
> > not even a hint of it in the deliverables, which is a major and extremely
> > important omission.
> >
> > Among the Foundational Components (the bullet list of paragraph 5), we
> need
> > a clause something like:
> >
> > A model describing the use of the protocol for interoperation between
> > multiple distinct virtual worlds and involving multiple region/agent
> domains
> > and services.
> >
> > Unless the many possible scenarios of cross-world interop are carefully
> > considered, the protocol has no hope of working in such scenarios.  This
> is
> > work we must do, or cross-world interop was just lip service after all.
> >
> >
> > Morgaine.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > =======================
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Infinity Linden <[e-mail]
> >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> okay... here's what i think we've all agreed to. i've taken the
> >> liberty of using the VWRAP name since it seems to me we have consensus
> >> around that name.
> >>
> >> also note that i still have the [e-mail] email list in the
> >> charter text, since we don't have the VWRAP mailing list up yet.
> >>
> >> but the rest of it should be "correct" based on discussions. please
> >> look it over and tell me if i've missed something.
> >>
> >> -cheers
> >> -meadhbh
> >>
> >> Working Group Name:
> >>
> >>  Virtual Worlds Region Agent Protocol (VWRAP)
> >>
> >> Chairs:
> >>
> >>  TBD
> >>
> >> Area and Area Directors:
> >>
> >>  Applications Area
> >>
> >>  Lisa Dusseault <[e-mail]>
> >>  Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>
> >>
> >> Responsible Area Director:
> >>
> >>  TBD
> >>
> >> Mailing List:
> >>
> >>  [e-mail]
> >>  http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
> >>
> >> Description of Working Group:
> >>
> >> The working group will define the Virtual Worlds Region Agent Protocol
> >> (VWRAP) for  collaborative 3-dimensional virtual  worlds. The protocol
> >> permits  users  to  interact  with  each other  while  represented  as
> >> "avatars,"  or digital representations  of the  user. Within  a single
> >> virtual  world, avatars  exist in  at most  one location  in  a shared
> >> virtual  space. Conforming  client  applications use  the protocol  to
> >> manipulate and  move the  user's avatar, create  objects in  a virtual
> >> world, interact  with other users  and their surroundings  and consume
> >> and create media and information from sources inside and outside their
> >> virtual world.
> >>
> >> Adjacent locations  in virtual worlds accessible by  this protocol may
> >> be   explicitly   partitioned  into   "regions"   to  facilitate   the
> >> computational  and communication load  balancing required  to simulate
> >> the virtual  environment. Such virtual  worlds may consist  of regions
> >> administered  by distinct organizations.  Though these  virtual worlds
> >> may  be partitioned,  they  remain "un-sharded;"  all inhabitants  and
> >> objects  in a  particular location  in  a virtual  world may  initiate
> >> interaction with  all other inhabitants and objects  in that location;
> >> and, service  endpoint addresses  refer to at  most one  location. The
> >> state of  a virtual  world is independent  of the  client applications
> >> that access it and may persist between user sessions.
> >>
> >> Regions and  services implemented according to  the specifications may
> >> be deployed by separate  organizations 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. To support the exegesis  of the specifications,
> >> the group  may define a  non-exhaustive set of  non-normative policies
> >> protocol participants may enforce.
> >>
> >> The protocol  should describe interaction semantics  for these virtual
> >> worlds, independent of  transport, leveraging existing standards where
> >> practical. It  should define interoperability  expectations for server
> >> to server  interactions as well as  client-server interactions. Though
> >> the  protocol  is  independent  of transport,  early  interoperability
> >> trials used HTTP(S) for non-real-time messages. The working group will
> >> define specific  features that must be replicated  in other transports
> >> and  will  define  the use  of  HTTP(S)  as  a transport  of  protocol
> >> messages.
> >>
> >> Foundational components of the protocol include the publication of:
> >>
> >>  * an abstract  type system, suitable for  describing the application
> >>    protocol in an implementation neutral manner,
> >>
> >>  * a   security   model   describing  trust   relationships   between
> >>    participating entities,
> >>
> >>  * guidelines   for   the   use   of  existing   authentication   and
> >>    confidentiality mechanisms,
> >>
> >>  * an application-layer  protocol for establishing  the user's avatar
> >>    in a virtual world,
> >>
> >>  * an application-layer  protocol for moving a  user's avatar between
> >>    adjacent and remote locations in a virtual world,
> >>
> >>  * format descriptions for objects and avatars in a virtual world, and
> >>
> >>  * an   application-layer  protocol   for  identifying   agents,  and
> >>    requesting information about them.
> >>
> >> The protocol  defined by this  group will carry information  about the
> >> virtual  environment,  its contents  and  its  inhabitants.  It is  an
> >> application layer protocol,  independent of transport, based partially
> >> on these previously published internet drafts:
> >>
> >>  * http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hamrick-ogp-intro
> >>  * http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hamrick-llsd
> >>  * http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hamrick-ogp-auth
> >>  * http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hamrick-ogp-launch
> >>  * http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lentczner-ogp-base
> >>  * http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levine-ogp-clientcap
> >>  * http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levine-ogp-layering
> >>
> >> Goals and Milestones:
> >>
> >>  * October  2009   "Introduction  and  Goals"  to  the   IESG  as  an
> >>    Informational RFC
> >>
> >>  * October 2009 "Abstract Type System for the Transmission of Dynamic
> >>    Structured Data" to the IESG as Proposed Standard
> >>
> >>  * October 2010 "Foundational Concepts and Transport Expectations" to
> >>    the IESG as Proposed Standard
> >>
> >>  * February 2010 "Guidelines for  Host Authentication" to the IESG as
> >>    an Informational RFC
> >>
> >>  * February  2010 "Service  Establishment"  to the  IESG as  Proposed
> >>    Standard
> >>
> >>  * February 2010  "Client Application Launch Message" to  the IESG as
> >>    an Informational RFC
> >>
> >>  * February 2010  "Simulation Presence Establishment" to  the IESG as
> >>    Proposed Standard
> >>
> >>  * June  2010  "Primitive Object  Format"  to  the  IESG as  Proposed
> >>    Standard
> >>
> >>  * June 2010 "Digital Asset Access" to the IESG as Proposed Standard
> >>
> >>  * June 2010 "Entity Identifiers" to the IESG as Proposed standard
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> ogpx mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ogpx mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
> >
> >
>