Re: [vwrap] Call for a vote on interop BETWEEN independent virtual worlds or not

<emerging out of lurk-dom>

Those discussion Barry references were as he remembers. We wanted to avoid
the meaning war and move forward with something that would work from either
(or all) perspectives on what a virtual world is or could be. In that light,
the standard can be used "between" two worlds or parts of worlds. I agree
with John, those aren't protocol differences, but they are differences in
perspective.

Kevin made a good point - we were (at one point) trying to focus on the set
of data that would be necessary for the various "betweeness" we all
envisioned - be it teleportation or tourism or migration. To do that we had
to define a few things... And I thought we had managed to come to a
consensus. I don't recall discussing that interoperability would be between
the same "class" of virtual world though. Can you point me to a document
where that is stated?

I guess it's time to refresh my memory and review all the drafts...

Kari

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Barry Leiba <
barryleiba.mailing.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

> Putting a finer point on what Joshua said:
>
> >> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Jonathan Freedman <
> jef@openmetaverse.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> From what I can tell the drafts do support interoperability between the
> >> same *class* of virtual world. The catch is that the language needs to
> be
> >> significantly clearer.
> >
> > The group's goals are formally described in the charter:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/vwrap/charter/
> > ... which, based on previous iterations of this discussion, we carefully
> > crafted to not try and nail down what a "virtual world" was so as not to
> > offend those who have an investment in any particular reading of that
> term.
>
> Indeed, and I think we are largely arguing about something we agree
> on, and, as Meadhbh and others have said, are stuck on the language.
> If we can get to the point where we *do* agree that the issue is just
> (or mostly) language, we can work on sorting out the language, and get
> un-stuck.
>
> As I understand the charter and the discussion leading up to it, we're
> arguing about what we *mean* by "virtual world".  Some want "multiple
> virtual worlds" to interoperate using vwrap; others are *defining* a
> single virtual world as the set of *regions* that interoperate using
> vwrap.
>
> I suggest that these are saying the same thing, that (in this regard,
> at least) we have the same goal, and that these two definitions
> largely collapse into one.
>
> Am I wrong, here?
>
> Barry, as chair
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>

-- 

http://kjlippert.wordpress.com/
http://community.webshots.com/user/MissGnomer