Re: [ogpx] where does VWRAP fit?

[Charles Krinke <[e-mail]>]

+1 Morgaine.

I am in a similar place here. To me, this work represents a step towards documenting and enhancing the work of OGP to go between similar but autonomous virtual worlds and to that end, I applaud it.

To the extent we concentrate on region crossing within the SecondLife virtual world, I will probably stand on the sidelines as my heart is in interop between SecondLife and various OpenSim grids.

Charles




________________________________
From: Morgaine <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 6:38:34 PM
Subject: Re: [ogpx] where does VWRAP fit?

On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Joshua Bell <[e-mail]> wrote:


>Morgaine:
>You keep quoting Meadhbh's comment from Aug 30th.
>


Joshua, I think it's excellent that you've highlighted a possible area of mismatch between the language selected for the charter out of expediency and the actual work ahead.  This gives us our first post-charter opportunity to clarify the goals further.

It was my understanding that Meadhbh's comment is still accurate, and that therefore it's the best that we currently have.  It was certainly a very clear statement, which is why I quote it, and if it is still current then of course it is correct of us to quote it.

We arrived at a charter that avoided making such clear statements, leaving many things open to interpretation so that we could get beyond the charter stage, which I believe was a good move.  It gave us rapid progress.

But we can't continue to be vague about everything.  At some point we need to know exactly what all these words actually mean and what the protocol can achieve, and I'm going to work hard to ensure that what we write actually is meaningful and is understood.

>From your reply, I believe that the crucial words "not between worlds" from Meadhbh's comment are no longer appropriate, in that you wish VWRAP interop between regions to include the case where those regions belong to more than one virtual world.  Is that correct?  If so, we can declare that earlier comment as overridden and I won't cite it again.

This will have a dramatic effect on our work.  Since it now opens up VWRAP to include interop between VWs (by removing "not between worlds"), our workload now includes the following:


	* Removal of the fictional "single virtual world" conjured up in the old OGP documents which overloaded the term and hence blocked all discussion about multiple VWs.
	* Mapping of multiple VWs onto the entities in our protocol, such as ADs and RDs.
	* Specification of use cases demonstrating how VWRAP will handle cross-VW interop in terms of the entities defined by VWRAP.
I am sure it will please many people in SL-compatible grids if we manage to put interop between worlds on a solid footing in this way.  (This was always the hope for OGP in open grids.)  Subject to the clarification above, this now becomes an important goal for VWRAP.


Morgaine.








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


On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Joshua Bell <[e-mail]> wrote:

Let me try using fewer words:
>
>VWRAP should be the protocol suite for enabling movement of an agent between two regions.
>
>Please note that the above statement says NOTHING about how the agent or regions are administered. Those regions could be part of one virtual world or two virtual worlds. They could be operated by one service provider or two; the agent services may be provided by one of the same or yet a third. 
>
>Is there rough consensus on that statement? Does anyone see anything in contradiction between that statement and the draft charter?
>
>Morgaine: You keep quoting Meadhbh's comment from Aug 30th. Based on feedback received regarding that comment, we (multiple mailing list members) came to understand that there was confusion about terminology. The charter was then refined appropriately to avoid confusion and focus on technical terminology such as "regions" and "agents" that have clear meaning and aren't a source of confusion. Please stop beating that dead horse.
>
>
>On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Morgaine <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Carlo Wood <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>Can you comment in detail to my post of 4 september too, Morgaine?
>>
>>Sure Carlo, I've just done it, and I'll post it shortly.  You wrote a long post, so it took a while to answer in detail as requested.  :-)
>>
>>Morgaine.
>>
>>
>>
>>================================
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Carlo Wood <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>Can you comment in detail to my post of 4 september too, Morgaine?
>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>
>>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>>>ogpx mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>>ogpx mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>