Re: [ogpx] VWRAP Draft Charter: 2009 08 28 revision

[Kari Lippert <[e-mail]>]

But isn't the client just another endpoint? I didn't see that a
distinction was being made referring only to server endpoints.

Kari

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Carlo Wood<[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 05:27:05AM +0100, Morgaine wrote:
>> As an alternative, I propose a simpler and much more flexible approach: define
>> virtual worlds as anything that implements the required endpoints of the VWRAP
>> protocol.  We do not need to know anything else about them.  This lets the
>> people who actually design the virtual worlds decide what constitutes a virtual
>> world.  The only thing that interests us is that these "virtual worlds"
>> implement the VWRAP endpointst.
>
> Very smart :)
>
> I have just one side note here; if someone creates a 'D' (sorry, can't use
> "virtual world" until we agree) using VWRAP internally too, again confusion
> might arise about the exact boundary of that "virtual world" (it could be
> the 'C's in that case).
>
> But you are very correct to realize that one aspect of a region domain
> run by a "single administration" (could be multiple administrations that
> work very close together: a 'D' thus) is that for all we care they use
> a different protocol inter-world (or extensions to VWRAP). Therefore
> you can replace my definition ("administrative boundary") very well
> with "VWRAP endpoints", without setting demands on internally used
> protocol.
>
> HOWEVER...
>
> the above only applies to server-server protocol, not to server-client
> protocol: "shared experience" is of utmost importance; part of our
> standardization efforts is in order to make it possible for viewers
> to represent "the world"/galaxy as much as possible in a consistent
> way to different users, which gives rize to the need of a consistent
> client protocol!
>
> Therefore, VWRAP would not only describe the protocol between the
> end-points of a virtual world ('D') but also the protocol used to
> communicate with viewers (clients). Though, I guess you can see
> that interface as an external boundary too.
>
> PS. The only way to keep wild growth at bay in the client-server protocol
> area, where, I expect, different 'D's (virtual worlds) will add extensions
> and start to release their own viewers to support those, is to add
> support for protocol negotion in VWRAP. Without support, it will still
> happen, but out of control, and become a total mess.
>
> --
> Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>