Re: [ogpx] Fwd: VWRAP Draft Charter - 2009 09 01

Meadhbh Siobhan <meadhbh.siobhan@gmail.com> Thu, 01 October 2009 16:45 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 B56603A67D3 for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 09:45:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.529
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.529 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.070, 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 7ss0bPa0gG5r for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 09:45:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-px0-f176.google.com (mail-px0-f176.google.com [209.85.216.176]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4BAF3A6855 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 09:45:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pxi6 with SMTP id 6so357837pxi.32 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:46:45 -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; bh=ixZ79/RSxwn+zvyL2YrWXcIpjLU38LnN6LdHUE0XtMI=; b=K1rG3AFJ1xvZONppnI88M+C9cw+9VV7CGtNF5gte9llGy8TWuSSsn7lBzPcsYhaJuG LVxnOWhm4CUBjB70Kdix5DmsgEiKIoqVtrRH7FZ9W/Y6pQOVMjMvS4bNnHfasYW/SzBM 4K4i8cPVSSZ8WzsnsSHXm13Kp/BiqPEXdivkw=
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; b=VisbakEEvCFsiyjIH1eGpGSvIBBHGa4CgoDqC4PSBBMHJuDLsP62yXkmEV0DxFHsVM FJBJyXQ+Q48Q1AKkzEuCVpGzhgUh5s2PcdYC9l5i977M6I1xN8V1q777gykPru9b2iHx 0qKeq/7aZlAwkwFfIuE2C7aUo/oqerojkh6TY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.114.2.19 with SMTP id 19mr2428408wab.26.1254415604857; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:46:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20091001160625.GA13702@alinoe.com>
References: <e0b04bba0909022028g68227199t86212294fe6faefc@mail.gmail.com> <e0b04bba0909132243r10730a3fq275f8143087807c6@mail.gmail.com> <20090914084420.GA25580@alinoe.com> <9b8a8de40909291316i19c79a96h111d88e73a64cc79@mail.gmail.com> <e0b04bba0909291751g157d2043g1c15e8d8ac417ccf@mail.gmail.com> <f72742de0909300910t23131532i1719d2c86423fa41@mail.gmail.com> <20091001105527.GA29450@alinoe.com> <9b8a8de40910010456m68690c17u42c121e8b0cc64e3@mail.gmail.com> <9b8a8de40910010516x12dcf7e3x659b38e7708030c9@mail.gmail.com> <20091001160625.GA13702@alinoe.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:46:44 -0700
Message-ID: <b8ef0a220910010946u46830f11jba99effb8508522c@mail.gmail.com>
From: Meadhbh Siobhan <meadhbh.siobhan@gmail.com>
To: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: ogpx@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ogpx] Fwd: VWRAP Draft Charter - 2009 09 01
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: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:45:23 -0000

hmm.. carlo.. while the alien example you give does describe a
"policy" that can be set by a RD, for the purpose of the protocol
definition, that's drifting a bit far afield. when used in the same
sentence as "protocol", i think it's common to mean only those things
which the participant in the protocol can detect in a reasonably
automated way, and are expressed in the protocol itself.

though i suppose, if we really wanted to, we could create the "alien
garment tag" that allows the producer of an attachment or clothing
texture to declare assets as being suitably alien in appearance, then
the RD could check that all assets and garmets on an incoming avatar
bear this tag.

but i'm not seriously recommending we do this; just trying to give an
example of what i mean when i say "policy" in describing a protocol.
we've already had the debate about the meaning of the term "virtual
world," i would like to get consensus that when we say "policy" in
terms of a protocol, we're using it in terms of what a protocol
endpoint could reasonably be assumed to be able to intuit.

-cheers
-meadhbh / infinity