Re: [ogpx] VWRAP still alive?

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]
> wrote:

>
> the scope of this working group is defined in the charter.
>
> if the charter is unclear to you, re-read the discussions on the ogpx
> mailing list and the commentary in the stockholm BoF session MP3
> archive and the minutes from that meeting.
>


Is there a need for this kind of response, and a poorly veiled insult about
not understanding the charter that we all put together as a team?

Please refrain from attacking people in this working group, either directly
or indirectly.  It's not professional, it does not advance our work, and we
just don't need it.

Our charter is quite clear, and equally clear is the split that we have
chosen to make between OGPX and MMOX --- indeed, it has been yourself who
has most often used the tactic of dismissing topics as "belonging in MMOX".
The split has been very useful I think, precisely because it narrowed the
scope of OGPX.  When it's broadened again, we need to know why.

The fact that Cable Beach was announced in MMOX and was never a part of OGP
during the two years of our AWG effort makes the question of its place in
VWRAP a real one.  The natural assumption would be that CB is out of scope,
unless stated otherwise.  If it is in scope for VWRAP then let's be clear
about it and describe why this is so.  And let's detail for everyone's
benefit why it is that we are coordinating with a particular group that is
designing a new interop mechanism.  (All kudos to John for doing this, but
CB is being designed in his team and VWRAP participants have no say on its
design, so clearly it's not an integral part of VWRAP and its relationship
to VWRAP is completely unknown.)

My own opinion is that Cable Beach is setting the pace in this area (in
conjunction with realXtend).  In contrast, it is a matter of fact that the
OGP team never publicly released a design for decoupled and distributed
asset sevices of any sort whatsoever.  Therefore I would guess that we are
reaching out to Cable Beach as the only solution on the table at this time.
Is this so?

That's my guess, but other people probably have other guesses.  Well let's
stop guessing and actually state *why* we are coordinating with John's
project, what the dependency with Cable Beach is, and how the VWRAP team is
going to be involved with dovetailing with CB, if that is our future.  The
charter may also have to be amended to reflect this integration with a new
protocol that is not an Internet standard.  In addition, we may also need
new deliverables to describe our interfaces to such external services.


Morgaine.





=====================================

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]
> wrote:

> morgaine.
>
> the scope of this working group is defined in the charter.
>
> if the charter is unclear to you, re-read the discussions on the ogpx
> mailing list and the commentary in the stockholm BoF session MP3
> archive and the minutes from that meeting.
>
> you do not need my permission (or anyone else's) to take apart the
> intro draft point by point. and indeed, this is a place where it is
> appropriate to do this. it may be advantageous to you to also take
> apart other documents (like david's deployment patterns draft.)
>
> however, i am not waiting for you to take this step. i, and my
> co-authors, are working on additional revisions of previous drafts. i,
> and my co-authors, have decided that we want to get input from people
> who have implemented the LLSD draft and the OGP auth and teleport
> drafts before seeking input from people who have not. we feel that
> incorporating the experience of people who have implemented previous
> revisions of the specifications will lead to a better document.
>
> you may, at any time, comment on your experience implementing and
> deploying LLSD related services including the authentication service
> and teleport. you may, at any time, without prior approval, comment on
> this list your thoughts about the architecture of proposed services
> such as the asset service, the trust model, profile services for
> avatars, etc. i am interested in your thoughts about deployment
> patterns, and they will be reflected in the upcoming intro and goals
> draft.
>
> however, in the same way that i do not ask for prior editorial control
> of your comments, i ask that you do not ask for editorial control of
> my comments and work output. it is a requirement that any document we
> produce reflect the consensus of this group. since david and i are the
> co-authors of the intro and goals draft, it is our responsibility to
> attempt to incorporate everyone's requirements (including yours.)
>
> but i ask that you allow us to produce the document before you criticize
> it.
>
> -sincerely
> -meadhbh hamrick (aka infinity linden)
>
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Morgaine
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > On the Intro, a good place to start would be to take the document apart
> > top-down, get agreement on its scope and on what is NOT to be included
> > because it belongs in more detailed documents, agree on appropriate
> > sections, and fill them in --- largely from the old OGP material modified
> as
> > appropriate, I hope.  (This is how we made good progress on the charter
> > too.)   Another possibility is to leave the Intro until last, once we
> know
> > all the material that it's meant to introduce in overview --- it may be
> far
> > too early now because so much is changing.
> >
> > On the "coordination with Cable Beach", really that should start with
> John
> > giving us some idea here of how he sees Cable Beach and VWRAP
> dovetailing.
> > Cable Beach was announced  on the MMOX list , yet we have been told on
> many
> > occasions that the material on MMOX is (by definition) out of scope of
> > OGPX/VWRAP, so there would seem to be some confusion about MMOX vs OGPX
> > scopes here if we're "coordinating with CB".
> >
> > Cable Beach was developed independently by John's team at Intel.  An
> early
> > version was incorporated into Opensim, and most recently the realXtend
> > mailing list has mentioned that Cable Beach is evolving to integrate into
> > realXtend's new system design with its WebDAV-powered inventories, as I
> > reported here earlier .  This is all extremely interesting and even
> exciting
> > in the rapid progress it shows, but it does beg the question of how
> progress
> > in VWRAP fits in with everyone else's ongoing evolution.  CB is not any
> kind
> > of standard after all, it's Work In Progress, and at a rather early stage
> of
> > its design, so dependence on it needs to be explained.
> >
> > Back in September, John said "I can't personally commit any development
> > effort to VWRAP work at this time, but I will continue to periodically
> sync
> > Intel's Cable Beach work with the VWRAP work and aim for a merging of
> > features in the future".  That seemed to suggest that CB would follow
> VWRAP,
> > but it left a lot unsaid.  We had not even considered multiple asset
> > services and policy-determining regions back then.  Is it still on track
> to
> > follow us?  What exactly is the dependency between our two projects?
> >
> > Personally I am very happy to see OGP take on in VWRAP a more embracing
> > concept of interop than its original narrow one, but this does need a lot
> of
> > clarification so that we know exactly what we're doing and why, since our
> > charter was made a narrow one on purpose.  I welcome the new breadth, but
> we
> > need to state what we're doing clearly and openly, and explain our new
> scope
> > and dependencies.
> >
> >
> > Morgaine.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > =============================
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Infinity Linden (Meadhbh Hamrick)
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> what issues do you wish to discuss, specifically, morgaine?
> >> --
> >>   infinity linden (aka meadhbh hamrick)  *  it's pronounced "maeve"
> >>         http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/User:Infinity_Linden
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 09:13, Morgaine <[e-mail]
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Might I suggest that, instead of working on several documents behind
> >>> closed doors, that those documents be worked on one at a time right
> here in
> >>> the VWRAP list where that effort belongs?
> >>>
> >>> That was how we managed to arrive at a group charter in a timely
> fashion,
> >>> by focusing on one thing at a time so that the whole group could
> contribute
> >>> meaningfully in a linear discussion.  The documents are not independent
> of
> >>> each other, so writing a number of them simultaneously just creates
> inertia
> >>> in the process of change and promotes a desire for rubber-stamping,
> which
> >>> isn't going to happen.
> >>>
> >>> The Intro document requires a very large number of changes as a result
> of
> >>> our removal of "one world" wording from the charter, for consistency
> and
> >>> clarity and to avoid the question of "Which world?" at any given time.
> >>>
> >>> Our protocol is very different now from the early days of OGP.  In
> >>> effect, it treats every region domain (and potentially every region) as
> a
> >>> separate world, since they can each have local policies, separate asset
> >>> services, and so on --- in other words, there is no longer any single
> world,
> >>> which is why we found an easy basis for agreement in the charter.  The
> >>> documents need to reflect that, starting from the Intro.
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick
> >>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The Assets draft is in a much more "complicated" state. We're
> >>> coordinating our efforts with John Hurliman who's the lead developer
> >>> on the Cable Beach project. We hope that what will emerge will be a
> >>> unified protocol for accessing second life resources as cable beach
> >>> resources.
> >>>
> >>> The right place for coordinating this is VWRAP, so that decisions made
> in
> >>> the name of "coordination" obtain early input from the VWRAP
> contributors.
> >>> That's what we're here for.
> >>>
> >>> In particular, we have already been discussing the operation of
> multiple
> >>> asset services right here with Joshua, so how this might work in
> conjunction
> >>> with Cable Beach is a matter of much interest to us.  There are bound
> to be
> >>> numerous alternative approaches, so I recommend that they be discussed
> >>> openly here with a lot of eyeballs on the problem, while ideas are
> still
> >>> fluid.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Morgaine.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ==========================================
> >>>
> >>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick
> >>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> yes, VWRAP _is_ still alive.
> >>>>
> >>>> we're currently working on three documents: LLSD / LLIDL, Intro and
> >>>> Requirements, and Assets
> >>>>
> >>>> * LLSD / LLIDL
> >>>>
> >>>> LLIDL was in the middle of getting a well deserved face lift when
> >>>> multiple, conflicting changes forced us to return to agreeing on the
> >>>> problem definition instead of pushing out a draft. LLIDL / LLSD draft
> >>>> development has been being informed by several pairwise / intense
> >>>> descussions involving investigation of specific use cases. i hope to
> >>>> get a wiki page up describing proposed changes at the end of this
> >>>> week.
> >>>>
> >>>> but essentially what we're looking at is thus:
> >>>>
> >>>> - peeps didn't grok why LLSD has the "you get the default value when
> >>>> you read a map key that's not there" semantics, so i'm integrating the
> >>>> "structure and interpretation of LLSD messages" email into the draft
> >>>> as motivation for why LLSD is needed. (
> >>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg00679.html )
> >>>>
> >>>> - peeps thought the LLIDL syntax was odd, that it didn't look "Cish
> >>>> enough." i'm developing a proposal for making LLIDL look more like an
> >>>> ALGOL derived language so C/C++/C#/Java programmers can look at it and
> >>>> have a more immediate understanding of what it's doing.
> >>>>
> >>>> - we want to be able to support GETs as well as POSTs when LLSD is
> >>>> carried over HTTP(S). this is so we an make use of intermediaries like
> >>>> caching squid servers. so we're working on a way to map a resource
> >>>> definition to a GET instead of a POST. i know there are some people
> >>>> who want to carry LLSD over XMPP, so we're interested in avoiding
> >>>> simply saying... "oh... just make this kind of message a GET" since
> >>>> that's more of a HTTP(S) specific construction.
> >>>>
> >>>> - related to the item above, we're looking at ways to encode a request
> >>>> as a query string. the idea here being that since some caching
> >>>> intermediaries can cache two GET requests with the same URL, including
> >>>> the query string, we want to be able to encode the request in the
> >>>> query string to take advantage of the caching behavior.
> >>>>
> >>>> - some people thought that the variant syntax was confusing.
> >>>> specifically, the relationship  between a variant record and the
> >>>> selector. (the selector is the element _in_ the variant map
> >>>> declaration that has a literal value.) in other words, the way the
> >>>> LLIDL parser knows that a particular variant is "valid" is that one of
> >>>> the members of the map has a specific value. the relationship to the
> >>>> variant and the selector was considered "haphazard" by some reviewers.
> >>>>
> >>>> - explaining the use of "late keys." i.e. - the '$' in some LLIDL
> >>>> definitions. the use of the dollar sign ('$') in LLIDL as the key of a
> >>>> map declaration indicates that there'll be a number of keys, the
> >>>> symbol for each is determined at message send time, not at resource
> >>>> definition time.
> >>>>
> >>>> - fixing things like broken XML DTDs.
> >>>>
> >>>> - changing the comment character from a semi-colon (';') to a hash
> mark
> >>>> ('#')
> >>>>
> >>>> * Intro and Goals
> >>>>
> >>>> There was a lot of commentary on the original "intro and requirements"
> >>>> doc in Stockholm, and a trickle of interest since then. There are a
> >>>> few minor changes to the draft, and the inclusion of a much better
> >>>> glossary. David is writing a section on deployment patterns, and we
> >>>> plan to integrate our changes "any day now."
> >>>>
> >>>> * Assets
> >>>>
> >>>> The Assets draft is in a much more "complicated" state. We're
> >>>> coordinating our efforts with John Hurliman who's the lead developer
> >>>> on the Cable Beach project. We hope that what will emerge will be a
> >>>> unified protocol for accessing second life resources as cable beach
> >>>> resources.
> >>>>
> >>>> -cheers
> >>>> -meadhbh
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 5:42 AM, Vaughn Deluca <
> [e-mail]>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> > It has gotten terribly silent on the list, and its not hard to see
> >>>> > why;
> >>>> > without updates of the drafts the discussion floats free and people
> >>>> > are
> >>>> > bound to loose interest.
> >>>> > I  do understand that drafting these types of documents takes time,
> >>>> > and too
> >>>> > much discussion in an early stage sometimes only complicates
> matters,
> >>>> > yet, a
> >>>> > quick status update and maybe even a working version of the drafts
> in
> >>>> > their
> >>>> > current form would be nice to keep everybody synchronised...
> >>>> > -Vaughn
> >>>> > _______________________________________________
> >>>> > ogpx mailing list
> >>>> > [e-mail]
> >>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> ogpx mailing list
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> ogpx mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ogpx mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
> >
> >
>