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

[Meadhbh Siobhan <[e-mail]>]

right. we're supposed to be using "a" virtual world instead of "the"
virtual world. lemme change that.

i don't know if we're supporting teleporting between radically
different virtual worlds like WoW and Second Life. But teleporting
between two virtual worlds that are both using OGP is not outside the
realm of possibility, and is a use case that has recently been brought
up in discussions about solutions like Sametime 3d and Linden's yet to
be named "behind the firewall" solution.

However... the protocol assumes the existence of a virtual world whose
different simulation regions MAY be administered by distinct
organization entities. That is, you might have one virtual world where
half the land is managed by IBM and the other half by Linden. Or, you
might have a virtual world where each region is administered by an
individual. Or, you might have a virtual world where you own all the
land. We're not defining the ownership / administration policy in
terms of who owns what, but to say "it's possible for each region and
each agent host to be owned / operated by a different
organization/individual, so don't make ANY assumptions that the peer
you're talking too is implicitly trusted."

Which is my way of saying... teleporting AND region crossings are
supposed to be covered by the protocol.

We put it in the charter in with the text: "Such virtual  worlds may
consist of  regions  administered by
distinct organizations." If the implications of that sentence aren't
clear, let's make it clearer.

do you think we should add something like "and avatars can walk across
administrative boundaries or teleport across them." ?

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Carlo Wood<[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:06:09PM -0700, Joshua Bell wrote:
>> Foundational components of the protocol include the publication of:
>>
>>  * an  abstract  type  system,  suitable  for  describing  the  application
>>    protocol in an implementation neutral manner,
>>
>>  * a  security model describing  trust relationships  between participating
>>    entities,
>>
>>  * guidelines for  the use  of existing authentication  and confidentiality
>>    mechanisms,
>>
>>  * an application-layer protocol for  establishing the user's avatar in the
>>    virtual world,
>>
>>  * an  application-layer  protocol  for  moving  a  user's  avatar  between
>>    adjacent and remote locations in the virtual world,
>>
>>  * format descriptions for objects and avatars in a virtual world, and
>>
>>  * an  application-layer protocol  for identifying  agents,  and requesting
>>    information about them.
>
> This speaks of "a virtual world", which refering back to the introduction
> seems to define that there are more than one virtual world possible,
> and hence the phrase "the virtual world" seems to refer to a single virtual
> world like Second Life (explicitely excluding open grid virtual worlds),
> or vica versa.
>
> Therefore, the "foundational component":
>
> * an  application-layer  protocol  for  moving  a  user's  avatar  between
>  adjacent and remote locations in the virtual world,
>
> states that support will be provided for "teleporting" between regions
> of a single virtual world, but explicitely omits "teleporting" between
> different virtual worlds.
>
> I'd like to know, too, why there is no mention of support for
> interop like teleporting (and sharing inventory) between DIFFERENT
> virtual worlds.
>
> Someone very clearly has to state what is the intent here.
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>