Re: [ogpx] Tourist use case

[Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Vaughn Deluca <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Well, for what its worth, i would  :),  *Raises hand*

okay. cool. as long as we don't put anything in a normative document
that requires a particular deployment pattern, i think we're good.

knowing that someone who's taken the time to participate in the list
discussion is interested in coding "tourist deployment model" software
is probably good enough justification to include it in the intro doc
(which is non-normative) as an identified use case.

i don't want to speak for david, but i think he would be hip to
defining deployment models as "who trusts whom directly, what domain
services are in, and how does the initiator of protocol get the
address for a service's resources."

david is working on typing up the descriptions of deployment models
for inclusion in the intro document, and since we have a finite amount
of space in the doc (i understand it that the IETF frowns on infinite
length drafts,) i propose we focus on a finite number of deployment
models. as i see it we have four deployment models: SL, OpenSim
Standalone, Cable Beach and Tourist. if we find this list is
insufficient, we can always revisit it later. if we find we've exposed
a new deployment model after the intro draft is published, we can
publish it's details in a subsequent draft / RFC. if the model is
important enough, i'm sure we can negotiate with our Area Director to
have it added to the list of "official" WG deliverables.

the reason i suggest this is we _do_ have a deadline, and we have to
start typing. lemme kick off a discussion of the details of the
deployment models in a different thread.