Re: [vwrap] VWRAP, after discussion with the Area Director

David W Levine <> Wed, 11 May 2011 16:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E931E0831; Wed, 11 May 2011 09:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.635
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_GIF_ATTACH=1.42, TVD_FW_GRAPHIC_NAME_MID=0.543]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TldPf2u5h+dk; Wed, 11 May 2011 09:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D48DE0838; Wed, 11 May 2011 09:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p4BFXjEG030530; Wed, 11 May 2011 11:33:45 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id p4BG0WYs087568; Wed, 11 May 2011 12:00:32 -0400
Received: from (loopback []) by (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id p4BG0UEw015887; Wed, 11 May 2011 12:00:31 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id p4BG0TQ6015674; Wed, 11 May 2011 12:00:29 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
X-KeepSent: 8257D76E:DE156681-8525788D:00579803; type=4; name=$KeepSent
To: Peter Saint-Andre <>
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.1FP5 SHF29 November 12, 2010
Message-ID: <>
From: David W Levine <>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 12:00:28 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML605/01/M/IBM(Build V853_CD4_03082011|March 08, 2011) at 05/11/2011 12:00:29
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/related; Boundary="0__=0ABBF21EDFC41E938f9e8a93df938690918c0ABBF21EDFC41E93"
Cc:,, Barry Leiba <>,
Subject: Re: [vwrap] VWRAP, after discussion with the Area Director
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 16:00:38 -0000

I think this makes perfect, if sad sense. The (now deprecated) Charter no
longer reflects what is
being done.

As I recall from the distant past, a charter, roughtly needs:

Some language setting a pretty clear scope, some language describing the
basic approach, and some concrete milestones.

One way forward would be to work on a new charter. Another would be for
various people who have an interest to put out
internet drafts on the ongoing mailing list to drive discussion. I really
think if people want to move the ball forward, one or
the other or both, is required. There's clealy still some interest, but
it's not exactly focused.

- David

p.s. Finally back to full speed, full time typing, after a 3 month down
time due to carpal tunnel, surgery and recovery. You are
all free to debate whether this is a good thing, or  a bad thing.

  From:       Peter Saint-Andre <>;                                                                                
  To:         Barry Leiba <>;                                                                                 
  Date:       05/10/2011 10:25 PM                                                                                                   
  Subject:    Re: [vwrap] VWRAP, after discussion with the Area Director                                                            
  Sent by:                                                                                                

Thanks, Barry.

Speaking as the Area Director responsible for the VWRAP WG, I'd like to
make it fully clear that we plan to proceed as follows:

1. Close the working group in its current instantiation

2. Keep the mailing list open

3. Continue discussions on the list

The hope is that folks here can converge on a new direction, leading to
formation of a new working group, or at least to publication of
individual Internet-Drafts that provide a framwork for future efforts.


On 5/10/11 7:12 PM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> 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
> continue.
> 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
> 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
> group.
> Please keep this going.  I hope we'll see a charter proposal for a new
> working group fairly soon.
> Barry, as chair
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list

[attachment "smime.p7s" deleted by David W Levine/Watson/IBM]
vwrap mailing list