IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ogpx] revised draft charter for OGPX working group

Meadhbh Siobhan <meadhbh.siobhan@gmail.com> Mon, 06 July 2009 21:20 UTC

Return-Path: <meadhbh.siobhan@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E78613A69BF for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 14:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.186
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.186 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.413, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m-sv9ADz-met for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 14:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f182.google.com (mail-yx0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB983A6A65 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 14:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yxe12 with SMTP id 12so7003167yxe.29 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4cx63MoJRx/mUN4p5qJb1zfwFOzj0z7UfLhUH7B0HQE=; b=dfyLXVOfM8wW9ktDPfJCkSYvlxcxmlWxt9UW0W72aBxnHqfaYerxlFhUQ8zW+0x58X TuX+a53e3srjUT5U/ryPcYzVHHMWxe7SU8TGq06Rr+JHKOrepBtOU1m1NG4mJVP19M6E /5dzJhQQxtdXBmqiq28rVDdm40dk/5iEROqLo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=TrqwSYZ1/dmBwqM1VfCwLMBGeLn3zgIlCRwHQocyNO5uh8uI90v1r+9Q6SfjbreOi1 qjOyp61Q5VsgbLvitLubH/x+Jr/MIY2Bg+ZylGG8kitZrgVnpJqu5KjkXONT5yp3j5lb UcmgnZGC3WouBKic0jAkEFWjB6ps2Tub8+L58=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.248.4 with SMTP id v4mr9286167anh.57.1246915147522; Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:19:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4A525917.6090007@dcrocker.net>
References: <3a880e2c0907061116r670f8d19t75afd7f4ab733ae1@mail.gmail.com> <4A525917.6090007@dcrocker.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 14:19:07 -0700
Message-ID: <b8ef0a220907061419q2f0bcd83wcf818b3b280f7ab5@mail.gmail.com>
From: Meadhbh Siobhan <meadhbh.siobhan@gmail.com>
To: dcrocker@bbiw.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: Infinity Linden <infinity@lindenlab.com>, ogpx@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ogpx] revised draft charter for OGPX working group
X-BeenThere: ogpx@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual Worlds and the Open Grid Protocol <ogpx.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ogpx>
List-Post: <mailto:ogpx@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:20:56 -0000

personally, i think we're pretty clear about the value add and i would
prefer to not have to say "OGPX is not about things that didn't get
done in MMOX."

but, if you're unclear after reading the draft charter and the intro
and requirements draft, chances are other people would be as well.

what verbiage would you recommend to make it more clear that OGPX is not MMOX?

-cheers
-m

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Dave CROCKER<dhc2@dcrocker.net> wrote:
>
>
> Infinity Linden wrote:
>>
>> thanks to the many people who offered suggestions concerning the OGPX
>> draft charter, we now have a new revision.
>
>
> Hi.  A few questions:
>
> Although it might be implied from some comments later in the draft, the
> beginning of the draft charter does not make explicit what value-add is
> being pursued.
>
> That is,
>
>   What problems will be solved?
>
>   What will be possible after the work is done that isn't possible now?
>
>
> I'll offer some guesses, but have no faith in my understanding of things:
>
>   1.  There are multiple VW instances that exist independently and cannot
> interoperate.  This work will permit exchange of virtual objects and (...?)
> among independent virtual worlds.
>
>   2.  Currently, a user must have a distinct and unrelated presence in each
> virtual world that they participate in.  This work will permit a user to
> have a single, unique presence, across multiple VW instances.
>
>
> First, are these two statements correct?
>
> Second, will the work solve other problems or create other enhancements?
>
> Also:  A topic that's been discussed frequently is the difference between
> having a client able to access multiple servers, versus having independent
> servers directly interact.  From the draft charter, I cannot tell which of
> these will be covered or how.
>
> d/
> --
>
>  Dave Crocker
>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>  bbiw.net
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> ogpx@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email