Re: [ogpx] where does VWRAP fit?

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Joshua Bell <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Morgaine: You keep quoting Meadhbh's comment from Aug 30th.
>


Joshua, I think it's excellent that you've highlighted a possible area of
mismatch between the language selected for the charter out of expediency and
the actual work ahead.  This gives us our first post-charter opportunity to
clarify the goals further.

It was my understanding that Meadhbh's comment is still accurate, and that
therefore it's the best that we currently have.  It was certainly a very
clear statement, which is why I quote it, and if it is still current then of
course it is correct of us to quote it.

We arrived at a charter that avoided making such clear statements, leaving
many things open to interpretation so that we could get beyond the charter
stage, which I believe was a good move.  It gave us rapid progress.

But we can't continue to be vague about everything.  At some point we need
to know exactly what all these words actually mean and what the protocol can
achieve, and I'm going to work hard to ensure that what we write actually is
meaningful and is understood.

>From your reply, I believe that the crucial words *"not between
worlds"*from Meadhbh's comment are no longer appropriate, in that you
wish VWRAP
interop between regions to include the case where those regions belong to
more than one virtual world.  Is that correct?  If so, we can declare that
earlier comment as *overridden* and I won't cite it again.

This will have a dramatic effect on our work.  Since it now opens up VWRAP
to include interop between VWs (by removing "*not between worlds*"), our
workload now includes the following:


   - Removal of the fictional "*single virtual world*" conjured up in the
   old OGP documents which overloaded the term and hence blocked all discussion
   about multiple VWs.
   - Mapping of multiple VWs onto the entities in our protocol, such as ADs
   and RDs.
   - Specification of use cases demonstrating how VWRAP will handle cross-VW
   interop in terms of the entities defined by VWRAP.


I am sure it will please many people in SL-compatible grids if we manage to
put interop between worlds on a solid footing in this way.  (This was always
the hope for OGP in open grids.)  Subject to the clarification above, this
now becomes an important goal for VWRAP.


Morgaine.








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

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Joshua Bell <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Carlo Wood <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Can you comment in detail to my post of 4 september too, Morgaine?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ogpx mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>