Re: [ogpx] Draft work on Foundation and Type System

+1 John.

We've barely begun to touch the use cases, and we know almost nothing yet
about how the messaging may look for anything beyond initial service
establishment, and even that's at an initial stage of discussion.  We're
certainly not ready yet to define the general vocabulary of communications
between clients and services when we don't yet know WHAT they'll be talking
about.

It's premature to define the protocol primitives.  I like Joshua's 3rd point
a lot though:

   - *And to be clear, by "be standardized" I did not mean "rubber stamp
   what's in a legacy protocol", but the overall process to design and document
   forward-looking, inter-operable versions.*

That was very well said.  We've discussed very little about interoperability
so far, and we seem to be assuming that everything is compatible with
everything else, whereas clearly that is almost never going to be true
except coincidentally at given points in time.  Interoperable versions of
the legacy protocol require thinking about *extensibility* in an environment
where everything is always evolving, and we haven't done that yet.

One thing that we need to examine very carefully arose in today's AW
Groupies meeting with realXtend:  that if a region cannot handle unknown
content types, then there cannot be cross-world tourism through that region
even when all agents present have everything they need to make sense of the
multi-world mashup.  Clearly interop is thwarted in this situation, which
underlines the point that we need to examine how we intend to handle data
and be certain that we can handle it flexibly enough to allow broad
interop.  We haven't done anything like this yet.

Morgaine.

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

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 2:55 AM, Hurliman, John <john.hurliman@intel.com>wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ogpx-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ogpx-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > David W Levine
> > Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 11:57 AM
> > To: Joshua Bell
> > Cc: ogpx-bounces@ietf.org; ogpx@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [ogpx] Draft work on Foundation and Type System
> >
> >
> > ogpx-bounces@ietf.org wrote on 03/01/2010 02:47:14 PM:
> >
> > > [image removed]
> > >
> > > Re: [ogpx] Draft work on Foundation and Type System
> > >
> > > Joshua Bell
> > >
> > > to:
> > >
> > > ogpx
> > >
> > > 03/01/2010 02:47 PM
> > >
> > > Sent by:
> > >
> > > ogpx-bounces@ietf.org
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:04 AM, David W Levine <dwl@us.ibm.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > There is the question of whether *some* of the current UDP traffic
> > > "Take two steps forward" "Rotate this prim 5 degrees" again models
> > > exactly as posts on a REST resources or
> > > something different.
> > >
> > > FYI, while it's not going to be fully baked, in prep for the "What's
> > > not in VWRAP" discussion I want to have in Anaheim I'm going through
> > > the Linden "legacy protocol" to populate categories of messages:
> > > Messages with request/response semantics Messages with lossy
> > streaming
> > > semantics Messages with notification semantics ... and the
> > > (independent?) axis of "does this need to be standardized at the
> > VWRAP
> > > level at all?"
> > >
> > The answer to the later, is yes if you ask me. If we can't describe how
> > the regions speak to the rest of the world, we're not actually going to
> > have interop, we're either going to have insanely painful hand-off
> > between clients, or an informal, non specified set of rules everyone
> > has to follow.
> >
>
> I would say no, at least not in VWRAP. Virtual World Region Agent Protocol
> bundles all of the cross-domain trust issues, protocol negotiation, and
> service establishment into a neat package that hands the viewer a blob of
> protocol-specific information on how to start communicating with a region.
> We have multiple groups involved that have looked at a fairly diverse set of
> use cases and are moving toward rough consensus and working code. In
> contrast, I can't see the standardization of a client<->server virtual world
> scene graph protocol becoming anything other than a rubber stamp of the
> current Linden Lab implementation ported to HTTP or a wandering discussion
> that is a few years ahead of its time.
>
> John
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> ogpx@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>