Re: [ogpx] where does VWRAP fit?

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Joshua Bell <josh@lindenlab.com> wrote:

>
> *VWRAP should be the protocol suite for enabling movement of an agent
> between two regions.*
>
> Please note that the above statement says NOTHING about how the agent or
> regions are administered. Those regions could be part of one virtual world
> or two virtual worlds. They could be operated by one service provider or
> two; the agent services may be provided by one of the same or yet a third.
>
> *Is there rough consensus on that statement? Does anyone see anything in
> contradiction between that statement and the draft charter?*
>
>
> I have read the draft charter again very carefully (it contains only one
reference to "moving between regions"), and I see no contradiction between
the above statement and the draft charter.  (It's one function of VWRAP out
of many of course.)

You have my +1 to build rough consensus on that statement, Joshua.

Of course, that statement does not tell us anything about *how * "*enabling
movement of an agent between two regions*" can be achieved when those two
regions belong to two different worlds.  That is something that we will have
to work out.

I am quite certain that there is no intention of bypassing and hence
subverting the policies of those two virtual worlds, and so the protocol
cannot refer to those two regions alone in isolation.

It must also refer to the two "policy servers or services" of those virtual
worlds, in other words their two *ADs* that provide the seed caps that
determine policy.  (Or instead of ADs they might be the two "*world services
*" of those worlds if we adopt Cable Beach terminology.)

I look forward to us figuring out how the two ADs will, together, achieve
this.  (Marshall has given us the excellent metaphor of *peering* between
VWs that can help here.)

Morgaine.

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

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Joshua Bell <josh@lindenlab.com> wrote:

> Let me try using fewer words:
>
> VWRAP should be the protocol suite for enabling movement of an agent
> between two regions.
>
> Please note that the above statement says NOTHING about how the agent or
> regions are administered. Those regions could be part of one virtual world
> or two virtual worlds. They could be operated by one service provider or
> two; the agent services may be provided by one of the same or yet a third.
>
> Is there rough consensus on that statement? Does anyone see anything in
> contradiction between that statement and the draft charter?
>
> Morgaine: You keep quoting Meadhbh's comment from Aug 30th. Based on
> feedback received regarding that comment, we (multiple mailing list members)
> came to understand that there was confusion about terminology. The charter
> was then refined appropriately to avoid confusion and focus on technical
> terminology such as "regions" and "agents" that have clear meaning and
> aren't a source of confusion. Please stop beating that dead horse.
>
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Can you comment in detail to my post of 4 september too, Morgaine?
>>
>>
>>
>> Sure Carlo, I've just done it, and I'll post it shortly.  You wrote a long
>> post, so it took a while to answer in detail as requested.  :-)
>>
>> Morgaine.
>>
>>
>>
>> ================================
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Can you comment in detail to my post of 4 september too, Morgaine?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ogpx mailing list
>> ogpx@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> ogpx@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>