Re: [ogpx] Draft Agenda for VWRAP WG Session at IETF77

["Hurliman, John" <[e-mail]>]

Confirming my attendance and presentation on "Cable Beach and VWRAP". Since we have more time I'd prefer 10 minutes plus time for questions, but I can make do with whatever the schedule allows. I plan to give equal time covering our research with the Cable Beach project and lessons learned during implementation and deployment. I can also talk on my experience implementing LLSD/LLIDL, but I didn't see a time slot for that.

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
> Joshua Bell
> Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2010 9:19 PM
> To: ogpx
> Subject: Re: [ogpx] Draft Agenda for VWRAP WG Session at IETF77
> 
> The final agenda has been published:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/77/agenda.html
> 
> Note that the time for the VWRAP session changed to Tuesday, March 23rd
> 09:00-11:30 Pacific. I'm pretty sure we will not use the entire 2.5-
> hour slot, but it gives us more breathing room.
> 
> Can I ask all of those who are planning to attend (physically or
> virtually) *and* present/lead discussions to reply on-list and confirm,
> and give an updated time estimate?
> 
> I'm confirming my attendance, and believe my discussion topic ("What's
> not in VWRAP") will fill about 10 minutes.
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Joshua Bell <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 	What, no feedback? C'mon, peeps!
> 
> 	A bit of an update though:
> 
> 	* We have a tentative time slot of Tuesday (March 23rd) evening
> (1740-1940 / 5:40pm-7:40pm) Pacific Time. The final schedule will not
> be announced until the 26th, however.
> 
> 	* That also gives us two hours, which means we aren't quite as
> constrained.
> 
> 	I would lean towards beefing up time spent for issue bashing on
> the three active drafts (intro, foundation, type system) and the
> "presentations" (deployment patterns, cable beach, accessibility,
> what's not...). Opinions?
> 
> 
> 	On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Joshua Bell
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 		Please get out your slings and arrows - it's time to bash
> the agenda for the upcoming face-to-face meeting next month in Anaheim.
> 
> 		We asked for a 90 minute session, so we should probably
> plan on dropping (from the list below) discussion of drafts which are
> not looking at submissions to the IESG in the next few months to
> dedicate more time for active work on the issues in the shorter term
> drafts (intro/foundation/type system). Also, if you'd previously
> proposed a topic and I did not include it, that's an oversight on my
> part not an intentional deletion, so please re-raise the request.
> 
> 		2min - Mixed Reality Status Check[1]  - Joshua Bell
> 		5min - Welcome, Introductions, Agenda Review/Bashing, News
> - Barry Leiba, Joshua Bell
> 		10min - Open Issues in "Introduction and Goals"  - Meadhbh
> Hamrick
> 		10min - Open Issues in "Foundation"  - Meadhbh Hamrick/Mark
> Lentczner
> 		20min - Open Issues in "Abstract Type System"[2] - Meadhbh
> Hamrick/Mark Lentczner
> 		5min - Status/Issues in "User Authentication"[3]  - Meadhbh
> Hamrick
> 		5min - Status/Issues in"Client Application Launch Message"
> - Meadhbh Hamrick
> 		5min - Status/Issues in "Deployment and Trust Patterns" -
> David W Levine
> 		5min - Cable Beach and VWRAP  - John Hurliman
> 		5min - Virtual World Accessibility[4] - Katherine Mancuso
> 		5min - What's NOT in VWRAP (a dissection of the Linden
> "Legacy" Protocol)  - Joshua Bell
> 		5min - Next Steps - Barry Leiba, Joshua Bell
> 
> 		[1] this is NOT to diagnose/fix issues; it's simply to
> confirm that a channel is functional or not, and redirect participants
> appropriately
> 		[2] Including implementation experiences, possibly by John
> Hurliman
> 		[3] Should include discussion on OAuth
> 		[4] Tentative, based on the scheduling of our session
> 
> 		Feedback appreciated:
> 		* What to add to the agenda
> 		* What to drop from the agenda
> 		* Time allotments/priorities
> 		* Overall order (I have Meadhbh/Mark on the podium for a
> long period of time; break it up a bit?)
> 
> 
>