[vwrap] VWRAP, after discussion with the Area Director

Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 11 May 2011 01:12 UTC

Return-Path: <barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65E6DE06E6 for <vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2011 18:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.378
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C9zgkvVQQFpb for <vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 May 2011 18:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 780DEE06C0 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2011 18:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk19 with SMTP id 19so12260gxk.31 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 May 2011 18:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=giEojaDzt8GJVTNcWlL00yV/QeYvgpoEyXhBIvzJcSo=; b=EDGg9d6UH+LaEDTGhy0eUDTGUPOUUK/6tUEoYNoOuEvm4Ut0U1KgoZgT7IS3ecim0j CYYAVsD2aqJbZY/72UEKNj0946uPXtTOagtZhKLq+l1wrtWJ8su7jnwtCYgi9cEGNgJS jvkzjKwra3kIRCu8fX3tBgNKvb+r4goNTwijk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; b=aE+LcdwNYTAmDPAUuB5vm6cTuq9Nqv8MDNYKdKq5GlTen5slxswNal2L5H6p+tuWTc yMGIZcYtb96Kul1fZCdjz3bIvwPheLrhHpYXqHKwkx3PPvY7TZB80QyfC61KB+gfZ0HJ K+hGFLhJQM+k6J5tjLt8LE+SLWb6T/K/obnek=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id o65mr9842708yhm.216.1305076328565; Tue, 10 May 2011 18:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 10 May 2011 18:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 21:12:07 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ZUsUYEOE0D0hyZVf-KEcq1Sr-fY
Message-ID: <BANLkTim5WZP=LaE8iwH_YuJZVBeGZ3Qe1Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: vwrap@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: vwrap-ads@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [vwrap] VWRAP, after discussion with the Area Director
X-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Wed, 11 May 2011 01:12:13 -0000

I'm encouraged by Morgaine's assessment of the progress the group is
making in discussions.  I like that it's taking a broader view,
looking toward interoperation among different virtual worlds.  The
discussion of the technology is going in a good direction.

Where it's going is to a very different place than what was set out in
the VWRAP charter.  The IESG will need to re-evaluate the work when
the group has things grounded and can propose a new charter, for the
new direction.  They'll need to see who's invested in the new work --
who will do the protocol design, who will take on the editing, and who
will give it the review it needs to be a good standard.  In the
meantime, this mailing list is the right place for the discussion to

The IESG will close out the current charter, and will leave the
mailing list open.  Remember that the IETF gets most of its work done
on mailing lists, and not all of them are associated with current
working groups.  There won't be chairs monitoring it... which means
that there won't be chairs bugging you about IETF process stuff, but
also that there won't be chairs nudging you along, so be careful not
to let that stall the work.

I suggest that the group put its focus on converging on two initial documents:

1. A new introduction and overview document, laying out what
problems/situations/scenarios you'll be addressing, how you'll go
about it, and what things will look like in the end.  This should lead
directly to a proposal for a new charter.

2. A protocol requirements document, specifying what the protocol(s)
will have to do (and won't have to do).  This will be a strong basis
for the protocol design, which could be done in that new working

Please keep this going.  I hope we'll see a charter proposal for a new
working group fairly soon.

Barry, as chair