Re: [ogpx] VWRAP still alive?

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

Might I suggest that, instead of working on several documents behind closed
doors, that those documents be worked on *one at a time* right here *in the
VWRAP list* where that effort belongs?

That was how we managed to arrive at a group charter in a timely fashion, by
focusing on one thing at a time so that the whole group could contribute
meaningfully in a linear discussion.  The documents are not independent of
each other, so writing a number of them simultaneously just creates inertia
in the process of change and promotes a desire for rubber-stamping, which
isn't going to happen.

The Intro document requires a very large number of changes as a result of
our removal of "one world" wording from the charter, for consistency and
clarity and to avoid the question of "Which world?" at any given time.

Our protocol is very different now from the early days of OGP.  In effect,
it treats every region domain (and potentially every region) as a separate
world, since they can each have local policies, separate asset services, and
so on --- in other words, there is no longer any single world, which is why
we found an easy basis for agreement in the charter.  The documents need to
reflect that, starting from the Intro.

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick
<[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

The Assets draft is in a much more "complicated" state. We're
coordinating our efforts with John Hurliman who's the lead developer
on the Cable Beach project. We hope that what will emerge will be a
unified protocol for accessing second life resources as cable beach
resources.


The right place for coordinating this is VWRAP, so that decisions made in
the name of "coordination" obtain early input from the VWRAP contributors.
That's what we're here for.

In particular, we have already been discussing the operation of multiple
asset services right here with Joshua, so how this might work in conjunction
with Cable Beach is a matter of much interest to us.  There are bound to be
numerous alternative approaches, so I recommend that they be discussed
openly here with a lot of eyeballs on the problem, while ideas are still
fluid.


Morgaine.


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

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick
<[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

> yes, VWRAP _is_ still alive.
>
> we're currently working on three documents: LLSD / LLIDL, Intro and
> Requirements, and Assets
>
> * LLSD / LLIDL
>
> LLIDL was in the middle of getting a well deserved face lift when
> multiple, conflicting changes forced us to return to agreeing on the
> problem definition instead of pushing out a draft. LLIDL / LLSD draft
> development has been being informed by several pairwise / intense
> descussions involving investigation of specific use cases. i hope to
> get a wiki page up describing proposed changes at the end of this
> week.
>
> but essentially what we're looking at is thus:
>
> - peeps didn't grok why LLSD has the "you get the default value when
> you read a map key that's not there" semantics, so i'm integrating the
> "structure and interpretation of LLSD messages" email into the draft
> as motivation for why LLSD is needed. (
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg00679.html )
>
> - peeps thought the LLIDL syntax was odd, that it didn't look "Cish
> enough." i'm developing a proposal for making LLIDL look more like an
> ALGOL derived language so C/C++/C#/Java programmers can look at it and
> have a more immediate understanding of what it's doing.
>
> - we want to be able to support GETs as well as POSTs when LLSD is
> carried over HTTP(S). this is so we an make use of intermediaries like
> caching squid servers. so we're working on a way to map a resource
> definition to a GET instead of a POST. i know there are some people
> who want to carry LLSD over XMPP, so we're interested in avoiding
> simply saying... "oh... just make this kind of message a GET" since
> that's more of a HTTP(S) specific construction.
>
> - related to the item above, we're looking at ways to encode a request
> as a query string. the idea here being that since some caching
> intermediaries can cache two GET requests with the same URL, including
> the query string, we want to be able to encode the request in the
> query string to take advantage of the caching behavior.
>
> - some people thought that the variant syntax was confusing.
> specifically, the relationship  between a variant record and the
> selector. (the selector is the element _in_ the variant map
> declaration that has a literal value.) in other words, the way the
> LLIDL parser knows that a particular variant is "valid" is that one of
> the members of the map has a specific value. the relationship to the
> variant and the selector was considered "haphazard" by some reviewers.
>
> - explaining the use of "late keys." i.e. - the '$' in some LLIDL
> definitions. the use of the dollar sign ('$') in LLIDL as the key of a
> map declaration indicates that there'll be a number of keys, the
> symbol for each is determined at message send time, not at resource
> definition time.
>
> - fixing things like broken XML DTDs.
>
> - changing the comment character from a semi-colon (';') to a hash mark
> ('#')
>
> * Intro and Goals
>
> There was a lot of commentary on the original "intro and requirements"
> doc in Stockholm, and a trickle of interest since then. There are a
> few minor changes to the draft, and the inclusion of a much better
> glossary. David is writing a section on deployment patterns, and we
> plan to integrate our changes "any day now."
>
> * Assets
>
> The Assets draft is in a much more "complicated" state. We're
> coordinating our efforts with John Hurliman who's the lead developer
> on the Cable Beach project. We hope that what will emerge will be a
> unified protocol for accessing second life resources as cable beach
> resources.
>
> -cheers
> -meadhbh
>
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 5:42 AM, Vaughn Deluca <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > It has gotten terribly silent on the list, and its not hard to see why;
> > without updates of the drafts the discussion floats free and people are
> > bound to loose interest.
> > I  do understand that drafting these types of documents takes time, and
> too
> > much discussion in an early stage sometimes only complicates matters,
> yet, a
> > quick status update and maybe even a working version of the drafts in
> their
> > current form would be nice to keep everybody synchronised...
> > -Vaughn
> > _______________________________________________
> > ogpx mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>