Re: [vwrap] Why are we standardizing the login handshake? (was RE: one question)

Crista Lopes <lopes@ics.uci.edu> Fri, 24 September 2010 22:16 UTC

Return-Path: <lopes@ics.uci.edu>
X-Original-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 319403A6A84 for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.427
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.427 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.172, 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 yoFNqHmAG4WQ for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:16:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from david-tennant-v0.ics.uci.edu (david-tennant-v0.ics.uci.edu [128.195.1.174]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B66D3A6AD8 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [169.234.6.38] (susan-foreman.ics.uci.edu [128.195.1.134]) (authenticated bits=0) by david-tennant-v0.ics.uci.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o8OMGFaa026494 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:16:15 -0700
Message-ID: <4C9D2331.1090000@ics.uci.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:16:17 -0700
From: Crista Lopes <lopes@ics.uci.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100711 Thunderbird/3.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: vwrap@ietf.org
References: <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933D012AD7E06A@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com> <4C9D20F5.2020507@ics.uci.edu> <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933D012AD7E094@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933D012AD7E094@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ICS-MailScanner-Information: Please send mail to helpdesk@ics.uci.edu or more information
X-ICS-MailScanner-ID: o8OMGFaa026494
X-ICS-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-ICS-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-1.363, required 5, autolearn=disabled, ALL_TRUSTED -1.44, TW_VW 0.08)
X-ICS-MailScanner-From: lopes@ics.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Why are we standardizing the login handshake? (was RE: one question)
X-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap>
List-Post: <mailto:vwrap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:16:37 -0000

On 9/24/2010 3:11 PM, Hurliman, John wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: vwrap-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:vwrap-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>> Of Crista Lopes
>> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 3:07 PM
>> To: vwrap@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [vwrap] Why are we standardizing the login handshake? (was
>> RE: one question)
>>
>> John,
>>
>> You may also want to read the intro draft.
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vwrap-intro-00
>>
>> This is in 4.4:
>>
>> "VWRAP defines formats  for describing objects and avatar shapes, but more
>> importantly it
>>      describes the mechanism by which those digital asset descriptions are
>>      transferred between client applications, agent domains and region
>>      domains."
>> ...
>> "Accessing and manipulating digital assets is  performed via capabilities which
>> expose the state of the asset to an authorized client. "
>>
>> In other words, assets are fetched by the client. So if my world pushes them
>> to the client, it's not VWRAP-compliant.
>>
>>      
> You keep saying "if my world does X, it's not VWRAP-compliant". That's not correct. "If my world does not have service endpoint X, it's not VWRAP-compliant" is the correct statement here. Your world can send assets to your client in any way it wishes, but if your asset service does not expose a VWRAP asset fetch capability (regardless of whether your own client uses it or not) then it is not VWRAP-compliant.
>    

So what exactly does this mean? (especially the 2nd sentence, the 1st is 
just for context of the word "client")

>"VWRAP defines formats  for describing objects and avatar shapes, but more
>  importantly it
>       describes the mechanism by which those digital asset descriptions are
>       transferred between client applications, agent domains and region
>       domains."
>  ...
>  "Accessing and manipulating digital assets is  performed via capabilities which
>  expose the state of the asset to an authorized client. "