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

[Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>]

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 endpoints.

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]>