Re: [ogpx] Feedback to draft-hamrick-vwrap-authentication-00.txt

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Carlo Wood <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> What also worries me in this is that apparently the current
> Second Life protocol is considered to be canonical VWRAP, and
> it is apparently not possible to define a VWRAP that doesn't
> match the current existing protocol used by Linden Lab.
>
>
Haha, don't even jest about it. :-)

The Linden goal I suspect is to ensure that VWRAP includes that subset of
protocol functionality that they intend to use some years in the future, so
that they will have a good chance of evolving SL to become VWRAP-compatible
one day.  At least that's what my interest would be if I were in their
shoes.

It's worth pointing out that nobody gets a free ride here though.  Everyone
will have a large implementation job ahead of them to implement VWRAP even
minimally, and even more so if they embrace multiple external services and
multi-world interop.

Limiting VWRAP to *only* the subset that a particular party wishes to deploy
would of course be completely inappropriate, and once we agreed on our
scope, such a thing became impossible anyway.  After all, VWRAP is to
be a *virtual
worlds interop* protocol (as we finally ascertained after much heated
discussion), not a walled garden building protocol, even though building a
walled garden will be one possible deployment, a subset of its capabilities.

The article that we wrote for IEEE Internet Computing pretty much says it
all in its title alone:  "*VWRAP for Virtual Worlds Interoperability*".  The
current SL protocol doesn't do that at all, so considering it "canonical
VWRAP" isn't even an approximation.

In summary, I think your worry might be slightly too strong.


Morgaine.





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

On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Carlo Wood <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 08:39:32PM +0000, Morgaine wrote:
> > The {first_name} + {last_name} concept has no place in VWRAP as a
> requirement
> > anyway.  That's a particular property of Second Life.
>
> +1
>
> Meadhbh wrote me back in private (something I don't understand, why
> not use this list?) that the reason for using first + last name
> is to accommodate existing implementations like Second Life and
> Opensim.
>
> I think that is not a valid agrument. We're designing a standard
> here, and there is no place for legacy in a new standard. I already
> pointed out in my first post that it is extremely simple to switch
> to a single Agent Identifier string anyway (just catenate first and
> last with a space in between).
>
> What also worries me in this is that apparently the current
> Second Life protocol is considered to be canonical VWRAP, and
> it is apparently not possible to define a VWRAP that doesn't
> match the current existing protocol used by Linden Lab.
>
> If Linden Lab thinks that it's hard to switch such things
> (from First + Last to a single AgentIdentifier), then I'd
> like to stress again the importance of protocol negotiation!!!
>
> --
> Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>
>
> PS With protocol negotiation being a standard part of every
>   VWRAP connection, it would be the simplest of tasks
>   to switch from First+Last to VWRAP, even allowing
>   a few years for viewers to switch (before dropping
>   support for the legacy login).
>
>