Re: [ogpx] OGPX WG draft charter, 2009-08-19 revision

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Meadhbh Siobhan
<[e-mail]>wrote;wrote, in answer to Carlo Wood:

and to your point about landmarks and teleport.
>
> teleporting between points in the virtual world, even if the origin
> and destination are managed by different administrative domains has
> always been part of the protocol proposal. we're not taking that out.
>


That was not Carlo's point.  Carlo asked about landmarks and teleports
*between
virtual worlds*, so stating that you're not taking them out from within a
single world is not answering his question.

The question being asked is a very simple one.  I do not understand why a
clear answer is not being given.

This is a matter of huge importance to the large number of SL-compatible
open grids that already exist, with more appearing regularly.  It needs to
be clearly stated whether mechanisms for interop between SL-compatible
worlds will be within the scope of the OGPX group, or not.

Defining our scope is our primary task at this time.  This question cannot
be dodged.


Morgaine.







On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Meadhbh Siobhan
<[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

> and to your point about landmarks and teleport.
>
> teleporting between points in the virtual world, even if the origin
> and destination are managed by different administrative domains has
> always been part of the protocol proposal. we're not taking that out.
>
> sharable landmarks haven't been explicitly mentioned, but we do
> require a way to uniquely address locations in a virtual world
> (otherwise how do you represent where you're teleporting too?) there's
> been a lot of discussion about using URLs to uniquely identify
> regions. If you added an offset from the middle of the region to the
> region's URL, that would be the beginning of a landmark.
>
> hmm... i don't think we've explicitly mentioned that regions have a
> bounding surface and an origin, but lemme put that on the list of
> things to add to the spec.
>
> -cheers
> -meadhbh
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:18 AM, Carlo Wood<[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > I think that what Morgaine is trying to say is that
> > if Linden Lab's official (or hidden) policy is to NOT
> > interop with other virtual worlds, then they are not
> > the right party to trust when it comes to defining
> > a protocol that most, if not all, other parties DO
> > want to support interop.
> >
> > Since it seems, at this point, that the policy of
> > LL will prohibit interop in the future between
> > SL and other grids, there is a lack of trust right now;
> > and as a result of that lack of trust, a very clear
> > statement about the intent of the OGPX (as opposed to LL)
> > about interop MUST be part of this draft.
> >
> > Personally, I will reject any protocol that doesn't
> > make it a priority to concentrate on interoperability
> > (such as sharing LM's and teleporting). So, instead
> > of adding a paragraph that clearly states that the
> > objective of OGPX is to not support interop, I'd rather
> > see a paragraph added that clearly states that it
> > IS to support interop.
> >
> > The keyword here being "clearly". That is certainly
> > not the case at the moment.
> >
> > --
> > Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>
> > _______________________________________________
> > ogpx mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
> >
>