Re: [vwrap] Comments on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vwrap-intro-00

[Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>]

cool!

i think we're all headed towards something resembling consensus.

you've provided me with more than enough input for me to whip out a
new draft of the intro draft. i think we can word it in such a way
that it doesn't alienate anyone on this list.

morgaine, i know you hate the existing draft, but if you could provide
me ANY input, i'll be happy to smush it into the intro draft. i
_think_ i understand your position and what you want with the tourist
model, but after several weeks of promising you're going to get text
to the list, you still haven't produced anything. (yes, that's
dangerously close to throwing rocks in glass houses on my part; i'm
late with several revisions myself.)

but i guess what i'm saying is, i would like to pen another intro
draft that takes recent discussions on the list into account. it will
not be perfect. if i flub it up, please believe me that it's due to me
misunderstanding you rather than me trying to steamroller an agenda.

that being said, i'm going to go start writing now. i hope to be able
to publish something today or tomorrow. then i'll ask everyone to
review it and tell me what you think i got wrong.

-cheers
-meadhbh


--
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]



On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Cristina Videira Lopes
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> In defense of Meadhbh's position, the charter for VWRAP does, indeed,
> support what she is saying, down to "a collaborative 3-dimensional virtual
> environment" and "An avatar exists in at most one location within a shared
> virtual space.":
> http://tools.ietf.org/wg/vwrap/charters
>
> Charters are the binding goals of working groups, I think. Hence my review
> stated as "this does not reflect the goals of the OpenSimulator project, and
> I don't know what to make of it." I was truly puzzled when I read the intro
> doc.
>
> But now that I thought more about, I think there's a way out of this
> puzzlement. In my spectrum of requirements for clients, there is a point in
> there where one assumes the existence of one, and the same, client. Let's
> make this group focus on that.  We can assume, roughly, the Linden Lab
> client, or some variation of it, since I think that this group does not have
> representatives from other radically different viewers. The thing that needs
> to be revised, I think, is the very strong interference that the intro
> document makes wrt the internals of each virtual world server-side system --
> that is never going to fly, not even among operators of virtual worlds of
> the same species! We are already seeing that in the small ecosystem of
> OpenSimulator-based virtual worlds.
>
> ---
> Personally, I'm becoming more and more interested in web-browser-based
> viewers, or something like them. I.e. viewers that are simply shells that
> receive, essentially, a lambda implementing the viewer itself. That's the
> way to go. But that doesn't exist yet, not in production at least.
>
> Fleep Tuque wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm sure I need to go back through and re-read some of these documents to
> find definitions, but I must be missing something entirely.  I've been
> lurking on this list for some months and the statement that "VWRAP is not
> now, nor has it ever been a protocol to enable
> interoperability BETWEEN virtual worlds" took me completely by surprise.
> I've been under the impression that was the entire point of this effort!
>
> The OpenSim model described by Cristina, and the concerns raised by the
> message at the start of this thread, pretty closely reflect my views and
> concerns.  A consortia of universities is developing in which each
> university will operate its own "world" - using their own access and
> authentication schemes, internal system architecture, etc. - but allow our
> researchers/students to be able to connect and go to the worlds of other
> participating members to collaborate on research projects.  We need
> protocols to help establish the ground rules for that connection, and what
> the baseline requirements are for our "world" systems to be able to
> communicate with one another, but ideally to be as minimally
> intrusive/restrictive as possible.
>
> Part of the interest in this experiment is similar to the "laboratories of
> democracy" model in which each institution CAN and SHOULD do its own thing
> internally so we can see what sorts of best practices and innovation in
> internal system design emerges.  (In fact we have little choice, since each
> institution is bound by different laws and policies governing things like
> authentication and student data.) In our use case, this is not a "tourist"
> model OR a "walled garden" model - it's both!  Each institution
> intends/needs to have areas of their "world" that are off limits to other
> institutions, and some areas that are accessible to members of the
> consortia.  Figuring out which bits we need to pass back and forth to make
> this work is, I thought, what VWRAP would be addressing.
>
>
> I will go back through and re-read the source documents with Meadhbh's
> comments in mind, but I wanted to chime in and say Cristina's concerns and
> perspective pretty closely represent my interests as well.  And I think it's
> a mistake to frame the conversation as a "tourist" model vs a "walled
> garden" model even hypothetically, since as far as I can tell, we are much
> more likely to see hybrids of the two than any pure implementation of either
> in the ecosystem of worlds that Cristina rightly points out are already
> developing.  In any case, a protocol that assumes only one world seems on
> its face of very little value to _anyone_ if the point is not to have
> interoperability between worlds using the protocol!
>
>
> Confused and befuddled,
>
> - Chris/Fleep
>
>
> Chris M. Collins (SL: Fleep Tuque)
> Project Manager, UC Second Life
> Second Life Ambassador, Ohio Learning Network
> UCit Instructional & Research Computing
> University of Cincinnati
> 406E Zimmer Hall
> PO Box 210088
> Cincinnati, OH 45221-0088
> [phone]
> [e-mail]
>
> UC Second Life:   http://homepages.uc.edu/secondlife
> OLN Second Life: http://www.oln.org/emerging_technologies/emtech.php
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>