Re: [vwrap] Status and future of the VWRAP working group

Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com> Sun, 16 January 2011 00:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com>
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 68CEA3A6BA2 for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:03:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 kWPrij1tro7j for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:03:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BB763A6BA0 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:03:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by vws7 with SMTP id 7so1588060vws.31 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:06:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lpawDYgyIAPF+T6Jc2L3SI6OyQCJ5EPcNFT+LKpmMbM=; b=JiH8PUaI/uPgjdyv3FSaCj0AJtfFfcG9rm/KsdCr/PVzeeoQnce1mt4riATaXdoJEC evpR5BNdS904fPXLmPgO0/GCH+Ek47dAu5KjksA/Fss6nGZ+1EVQ3qTjYK4lG/GkmL8f ZRiMTRslTg+NTVruy1s7FnNGggv79NBSfuq18=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=hmYcU/WeNR/KHMXk8nB3adF7p3QD+VsCZvTeWpJFp42eHoeiWzT9oj2KPplXwi9RbX ZOsGhThBjfGx/07GVOpt9M9P+pKCH47LrDtNLytnjcGkg8Bt9FWA+FwYAkdpyEUc4MWP XTGYgjGv6qzwOr5Ml9M6C40r72xfHUDf/Xz4Q=
Received: by 10.220.176.66 with SMTP id bd2mr751203vcb.139.1295136363869; Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:06:03 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.202.141 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:05:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimSnWb1g09+P++=ZTEgzkrir9RrNPUKNf2jOAr0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=hAM-UowEcXBdtZ3y9KK_cQ5wUsWJKTv=rOXT_@mail.gmail.com> <4D30F6FE.4020805@ics.uci.edu> <AANLkTinGQ_Up1Ot_rszzMNrofAqOyPczZ8Ei9NyqzKsg@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTine3_sGOf_TLUqY+te634_+PcVHKB7ovpOSLKZq@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=ihYsXqDaHwWFi88iM2SgoXWWy3jo2_-AhrLaJ@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimyRmOjwV=K=rU2bismpdCkNsT52_MWtFeDFRTZ@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTim0DFg1VXfegJ85cQSQuTZ66NmQULi7kf+pVwib@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTika90EbV8qFcwq43YSujfoarfLTtnnuM=EMPDUr@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimSnWb1g09+P++=ZTEgzkrir9RrNPUKNf2jOAr0@mail.gmail.com>
From: Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:05:43 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTik5SNwv9jEf1QBwOoji0GTYNRvPdiT=P2pDfJ44@mail.gmail.com>
To: Vaughn Deluca <vaughn.deluca@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: vwrap@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Status and future of the VWRAP working group
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: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:03:38 -0000

options 1 & 2 require someone to step up and volunteer to author new docs.

any takers?

if no one will step up, then i think option #3 is most appropriate.

if i read barry's email correctly, euthanizing VWRAP now does not
preclude rechartering in the future if there's renewed interest.

-cheers
-meadhbh
--
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * OhMeadhbh@gmail.com



On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Vaughn Deluca <vaughn.deluca@gmail.com> wrote:
> Meadhbh,
> Meadhbh,
>
> As i stated a few mails back, i am certainly willing to help, but I am
> not  a proffesional in this field, and my expertise is insufficient to
> play an editors role. -and to be honnest, i do not have the needed
> time for such a role either. But for sure i will be making
> contributions to intro document where possible.
>
> Option 3 is conflating core participation and consensus/enthusiasm. I
> am fairly optimistic about the possibility to (eventually) reach
> consensus, but we might indeed be critically low on core
> participation. Barry wrote "Three or four participants isn't enough"
> and he is right. This tread has only a handfull of responses,
> dangerously close to that level.
>
> Close, but not there yet, we will see what happens on the wiki. If
> *that* fails its time for option 3.
>
> --Vaughn
>
> On 1/15/11, Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com> wrote:
>> whoops. yes.  meant to say "you're voting for option #2"
>>
>> but my original point was that there's a fair amount of work to be
>> done, and i was asking if you were going to re-write the intro. if we
>> can't find anyone willing to do the work, we might have to go with
>> option #3.
>>
>> -cheers
>> -meadhbh
>> --
>> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
>> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * OhMeadhbh@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Vaughn Deluca <vaughn.deluca@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> No, i am voting for option 2. Barry wrote:
>>>
>>> "2. Come to consensus on significant changes to the direction of the
>>> VWRAP specs[...]  Consider rechartering, if the direction has changed
>>> enough to require that."
>>>
>>> All i am saying is that i don't see the need for rechartering *yet*.
>>>
>>> --Vaughn
>>>
>>> On 1/15/11, Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> you're voting for option 1 then, but are you volunteering to do the work?
>>>>
>>>> the current intro XML is in SVN at
>>>> http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/vwrap/
>>>>
>>>> you can check them out with the command:
>>>>
>>>> svn co http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/vwrap/ vwrap_documents
>>>>
>>>> if there's interest, i'm happy to put on a 30 minute "how to edit,
>>>> write and publish an internet draft" presentation in world somewhere.
>>>>
>>>> -cheers
>>>> -meadhbh
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
>>>> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * OhMeadhbh@gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Vaughn Deluca <vaughn.deluca@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I am not convinced rechartering is actually needed. The introduction
>>>>> document certainly needs an overhaul, and we to need to reaffirm we
>>>>> are all on the same track, but I think that the existing charter might
>>>>> still work for us. I suggest we work with it, at least until it
>>>>> becomes the obvious obstacle for progress.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Vaughn
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/15/11, Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hey Barry,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so it seems like there's at least some interest for rechartering.
>>>>>> what's the mechanics for that? do we call for a new BoF or just hash
>>>>>> out a new charter on the mailing list?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -cheers
>>>>>> -meadhbh
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
>>>>>> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * OhMeadhbh@gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Vaughn Deluca
>>>>>> <vaughn.deluca@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Although i have only been operating in the fringe of this group, i
>>>>>>> would like to argue for #2
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It clear that some refocussing and consensus building is needed, but
>>>>>>> we should at least  give that a try. To me it seems definitely to
>>>>>>> early to give up. If we try #2  it will become clear if  #3 can
>>>>>>> indedeed be avoided.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see christina's point of starting at the basis, and fixing SSO
>>>>>>> first. However, I feel that from the perspective of VWRAP SSO is
>>>>>>> actually a well described sub-problem that can be left to others to
>>>>>>> solve, while we focus on the specific  of avatars and assets.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In  terms of actual commitment, i think the wiki idea is great, and i
>>>>>>> will try to free some time to contribute there in the near future.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --Vaughn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/15/11, Cristina Videira Lopes <lopes@ics.uci.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm leaning towards #2 and #3 simultaneously :)
>>>>>>>> Let me explain.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The goal of achieving virtual world interoperability always felt like
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> niche goal to me, but one that, given the nature of these
>>>>>>>> applications,
>>>>>>>> touched on a couple of more foundational issues: single sign ons and
>>>>>>>> Web
>>>>>>>> services security -- in short, federations that cross enterprise
>>>>>>>> boundaries.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is a variety of implementations for SSOs out there, more
>>>>>>>> recently
>>>>>>>> the one in the Hypergrid, and a variety of ways of securing Web
>>>>>>>> services. But no standards that I know of -- apart from the SOAP
>>>>>>>> stuff.
>>>>>>>> Perhaps this group should band with others who may be interested in
>>>>>>>> standardizing these things -- SSO seems like it's ripe for that. In
>>>>>>>> other words, let's join with others on common foundational issues,
>>>>>>>> rather than separating from them along the lines of application
>>>>>>>> domains
>>>>>>>> (VWs vs everything else).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In that sense I'd argue for #3, because doing an IETF SSO working
>>>>>>>> group
>>>>>>>> properly would require substantial change and outreach. There's a
>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>> history in SSOs. The good news is that from what I read in [1], there
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> now some interest in the IETF on this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, some issues are application-domain-specific -- e.g. avatars,
>>>>>>>> assets;  in the Web model, these are MIME type issues. They need
>>>>>>>> standardization too -- or at least generalized agreement on the data
>>>>>>>> that gets passed around.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In that sense I'd argue for #2. There are MIME type standards that
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> group can define specifically for virtual worlds. That's one part of
>>>>>>>> interoperability that only ppl in the VW field can tackle.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Crista / Diva
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [1] http://isoc.org/wp/ietfjournal/?p=1715
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/14/2011 9:13 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Good day, all.
>>>>>>>>> The chairs and area directors have been talking about the status and
>>>>>>>>> future of the VWRAP working group.  Owing to changes in focus and
>>>>>>>>> commitment by both companies and individuals, things have been
>>>>>>>>> languishing, and it's not clear to us that we have what we need to
>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>> the chartered work done.  The introduction document looked close to
>>>>>>>>> ready, until some controversy on its content and direction brewed,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> the result of that discussion was inconclusive.  The normative
>>>>>>>>> drafts
>>>>>>>>> that have seen some implementation (type system, launch message,
>>>>>>>>> etc.)
>>>>>>>>> also appear nearly technically complete, but some issues have been
>>>>>>>>> identified and not resolved by subsequent discussion, consensus, and
>>>>>>>>> editing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At this point, the mailing list has been too quiet for too long, all
>>>>>>>>> the draft documents have expired, and we need to make a decision
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>> what to do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The chairs and ADs see three possibilities:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. Find new document editors, pick up the chartered work with the
>>>>>>>>> existing document base, and get moving again.  Get the introduction
>>>>>>>>> document finished by the end of February, and make progress on the
>>>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. Come to consensus on significant changes to the direction of the
>>>>>>>>> VWRAP specs, find new document editors, revamp the introduction
>>>>>>>>> document, and get that finished, or substantially so, by the end of
>>>>>>>>> February.  Have some clear consensus, clear direction, and
>>>>>>>>> enthusiasm
>>>>>>>>> to continue.  Consider rechartering, if the direction has changed
>>>>>>>>> enough to require that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3. Accept that we no longer have enough core participation,
>>>>>>>>> consensus,
>>>>>>>>> and enthusiasm to make progress, and close the working group.
>>>>>>>>>  Future
>>>>>>>>> work in the virtual world area could charter a new working group
>>>>>>>>> later.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note that options 1 and 2 both require that we demonstrate
>>>>>>>>> sufficient
>>>>>>>>> energy and participation to really get work done and to demonstrate
>>>>>>>>> consensus.  That means that we need people to commit to
>>>>>>>>> writing/editing documents, actively discussing the technical issues
>>>>>>>>> with the goal of reaching consensus on the content of the documents,
>>>>>>>>> and, importantly, reviewing documents and showing that we have
>>>>>>>>> consensus.  Three or four participants isn't enough, and conflicting
>>>>>>>>> ideas that can't be resolved into a consensus-based position won't
>>>>>>>>> work.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What say you, VWRAP participants?  Can we pick up the work and make
>>>>>>>>> progress?  Shall we close the working group, and perhaps consider
>>>>>>>>> something in future?  Do you favour options 1, 2, or 3?  Or do you
>>>>>>>>> see
>>>>>>>>> an alternative option you'd like to bring up?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Barry and Joshua, VWRAP chairs
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> vwrap mailing list
>>>>>>>>> vwrap@ietf.org
>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> vwrap mailing list
>>>>>>>> vwrap@ietf.org
>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> vwrap mailing list
>>>>>>> vwrap@ietf.org
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>