IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ogpx] ogpx Digest, Vol 11, Issue 6

Lawson English <lenglish5@cox.net> Fri, 05 March 2010 05:14 UTC

Return-Path: <lenglish5@cox.net>
X-Original-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F19D128C1C3 for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 21:14:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jx65xXKFNkmy for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 21:14:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fed1rmmtao103.cox.net (fed1rmmtao103.cox.net [68.230.241.43]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F8ED28C1BE for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 21:14:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fed1rmimpo03.cox.net ([70.169.32.75]) by fed1rmmtao103.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20100305051455.YLFT19579.fed1rmmtao103.cox.net@fed1rmimpo03.cox.net>; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 00:14:55 -0500
Received: from ip72-200-121-127.tc.ph.cox.net ([72.200.121.127]) by fed1rmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id pHEu1d00B2l1Ksg04HEvWN; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:14:55 -0500
X-VR-Score: -180.00
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=2jNAe8bl7dKZqluhAH3XPKMU4gZlZJN30MLCqgTVbhI= c=1 sm=1 a=FSiN1CXUnnEA:10 a=Wajolswj7cQA:10 a=lHHFyFaL52RzbKbxZIYZqA==:17 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=Je1a1irkAGZigV5BPhgA:9 a=ZYnycwkjbIExA8IQKsx891-6vCMA:4 a=lHHFyFaL52RzbKbxZIYZqA==:117
X-CM-Score: 0.00
Message-ID: <4B90934E.4090302@cox.net>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:14:54 -0700
From: Lawson English <lenglish5@cox.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
References: <mailman.155.1267732820.3585.ogpx@ietf.org> <adae2d8e1003041256i33081dbeiceb52b146f832af3@mail.gmail.com> <6c9fcc2a1003041340v2c50d6ap68e576c4b9e356ea@mail.gmail.com> <4B902967.9000608@stpeter.im>
In-Reply-To: <4B902967.9000608@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ogpx@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ogpx] ogpx Digest, Vol 11, Issue 6
X-BeenThere: ogpx@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: lenglish5@cox.net
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <ogpx.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ogpx>
List-Post: <mailto:ogpx@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 05:14:54 -0000

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> On 3/4/10 2:40 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>   
>>> If folks would be content with using IRC rather than Jabber I have an IRC
>>> <-> SL relay that works fairly well.
>>>       
>> Jabber is the official IETF IM mechanism. 
>>     
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3921 :)
>
>   
>> It's certainly fine if we
>> can use IRC (or anything else), but we'll get the most connectivity
>> (and acceptance) if we can do our bridging with Jabber.
>>     
>
> There are IRC <=> XMPP bridges but SL <=> IRC <=> XMPP might be a bridge
> too far...
>
> Peter
>
>
>   

There's at least one IRC SL bridge and at least one SL jabber bridge and 
I believe that realXtend's default chat is jabber. I don't think its a 
big problem regardless.


It would be NICE to have such bridges set up formally, and certainly 
VWRAP should be eating its own dog foot (virtual world interop) but most 
people who can use SL can also use jabber.


Lawson

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email