Re: [ogpx] where does VWRAP fit?

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

>
> 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.
>

Joshua, this is a completely different horse.

That was the charter.  We are now beyond that stage and dealing with the
problem space, the solution space, and the draft specifications.  We have
only just begun this new area of work.

One of the key changes to the charter was the eradication of the references
to a single virtual world which was such a sticking point.  There are over
100 lines containg that problem phrase in the draft-hamrick-ogp-intro.txt
document alone.

I think we have quite a bit more work to do before we can go home, and
finding effective terminology is merely the start of our efforts.  It's far
from being a dead horse.

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
>
>