RE: [SWMP] My understanding so far

"Tony Parisi" <> Wed, 22 August 2007 18:39 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1INv6n-0005Ro-Vx; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:39:13 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1INv6n-0005Rg-2L for; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:39:13 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1INv6l-0001Va-JA for; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 14:39:13 -0400
Received: from NEO ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 156C6464005; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:37:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Tony Parisi" <>
To: <>, <>
Subject: RE: [SWMP] My understanding so far
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 11:39:07 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
Thread-Index: Acfk6l0sNDBGJKY1Sze+f5UD0o2pgQAAPVNQ
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-Id: <>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 2b3349545af520ba354ccdc9e1a03fc1
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of a Simple Wide-area Multiuser-3D Protocol <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1056552078=="

I think I agree with that sentiment. Having a working group will raise the
stakes. It's a bit early for that. Let's keep this more casual for the next
little while, generally explore the issues at a next level of detail.


We'll try to get you some feedback shortly. As Jay pointed out we are a bit
snowed under at the moment.







From: [] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: [SWMP] My understanding so far



I am interested in knowing what you agree with and what you don't agree
with, but I don't feel a need to start a charter. 

The more work we do to achieve consensus before starting a working group,
the better.  Once we are at the working group phase everything will become
more formal and feel more critical.  There are only a few of us in the
conversation right now and it seems sensible to find the common ground
before getting more formal.  Who knows, we might all be seeing this in
radically different ways.  Before committing to a working group, I would
prefer to know that a core of other committed people are consistently
returning to the same set of objectives and design concerns. 



Hi John, sorry for the late reply, I've been "swamped" with corporate stuff.

john_patterson <>  at
I have proposed some changes to the swmp specification and there has not
been much resistance.  I thought it might help to rearticulate the swmp
message set with my changes. 
Very thoughtful analysis and detailed proposals, and I, for one, agree with
most of it.  Your clear explication of assumptions is fantastic. I'll add
thoughts regarding details but first I want to make sure everybody
understands the context of this list.

This is an "interest" list for disucssion about the topic of a "simple
wide-area multiuser-3D protocol", being a first step towards a Working Group
and then the rfc process.  But just being at the interest-discussion stage,
we don't yet have a process for submission of changes, approval of changes,
or publishing of changes.  Indeed we don't really have a specification to
change except for the strawman work I submitted, in the hopes that people
find it useful as a starting point.

Thus your analysis is most welcome, but to take it to the next step we need
to draft a charter, nominate and choose working group chairs.  Are people
anxious to go to the working group stage?  If so, lets pop up a level and
discuss the charter.



SWMP mailing list