Re: [vwrap] Conditioners and refineries

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Mike Dickson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 16:23 +0000, Morgaine wrote:
> > There is no default format, and nowhere does VWRAP deal in
> > SL-compatible grids.
>
> That's actually for the contributors to define.  There's no reason we
> can't choose to favor a direction that's compatible or at least
> complimentary with existing practice.
>
> >
> > We are defining a services-oriented architecture which is nothing like
> > that of today's SL, and we cannot for a moment assume that SL will
> > adopt it in the future, as that is their choice, not ours.
>
> You have a tendency to use "we" as this inclusive, everyone agrees with
> me so its a done deal concept.  Again wether the group chooses to
> leverage some of the concepts in SL (like LLSD for instance) is still
> open to discussion.  And protocol standard are what "we" are about here.
> Honestly if we fail to produce something that can "inter-operate" with
> SL at least to some degree I think the usefulness is minimal.
>
>

Mike, in the post you quoted, I made no reference to what I personally would
like to see.  When I've used the word "we" and suggested that "we" hold some
view, it is because the participants of THIS GROUP have expressed similar
ideas in sufficient numbers for it to be an approximate majority view, and
often (but not always) unanimous.  If the "we" does not include yourself, it
is because you were either not participating at the time, or because you
were in the minority on the topic at the time.

A default content format has never even been *mentioned* here until
Dzonatas' recent post, so when I wrote "There is no default format" it was a
wholly accurate statement up to this point in time, and not just my
opinion.  And while we cannot foretell the future, that statement will
continue to be accurate until such a time as we've discussed the issue and
decided that there will be a default format.  In the interim, the fact that
there is no default format specified, agreed, or even discussed in VWRAP,
stands, regardless of whether you or I would wish it otherwise personally.

With regard to our relationship with SL, I don't think I need to explain
further the fact that we are not defining Linden Lab's future architecture,
protocols, nor service concepts for them.  We don't have that power, and
they are under no obligation to take any notice of what we do, particularly
now that they have officially withdrawn from the table.  At best we can hope
that our protocols are good enough and flexible enough that a subset of them
is useful for a proprietary service like Second Life.

Our work is not being undertaken for their benefit however, but to serve the
needs of the entire Internet community as per our mandate under the *IETF
Mission Statement*.  If Linden Lab can benefit as well then we have done a
good job.

I hope that you are not disagreeing that "we are defining a
services-oriented architecture", so I'm not sure why you cited that
sentence.  Having witnessed all the discussions since the start of AWG and
OGP and MMOX all the way through to VWRAP, I believe that we are completely
unanimous that that is exactly what we are doing, so the "we" was, again,
accurate.  If you don't think that we should be defining a services-oriented
architecture, I have yet to read any objections in that regard.





> > The only partly-compatible VW frameworks over which we have a small
> > amount of influence are Opensim and realXtend (which uses Opensim
> > server-side), because we can take their open source code and adapt it
> > to our protocols if we wish.  In that sense, we could be said to be
> > defining an Opensim-compatible protocol, but never an SL-compatible
> > protocol.  That would be a misapprehension.
>
> This is all about implementation and isn't related to standards work at
> all.  How what is produced here is implemented into a "product" (open
> source or not) is irrelevant. And again, wether the protocol is
> "SL-compatible" is open to discussion.  You clearly have a bias away
> from it but its not clear that's true for everyone.
>
>


That is incorrect.  IETF drafts are not promoted to Internet standards
unless they have implementations --- again, the Mission Statement is worth
reading.  "*Rough consensus and running code*" is a cardinal principle
highlighted in BCP 95.  Since we do not have the power to test our ideas
within Second Life, but only within open source frameworks like Opensim, SL
compatibility is beyond our reach until such a time as Linden Lab provides
the required test implementation.  In the absence of that, only Opensim
and/or realXtend compatibility is within our grasp because we can add the
"running code" there ourselves.

(Adding VWRAP protocol code to other open source VW frameworks such as
OpenWonderland, OpenCobalt, or Sirikata is potentially within our grasp as
well, but would require much more work and knowledge of those systems.)




> >
> > We occasionally say that we are defining an SL-like data architecture,
> > but even that isn't really correct since VWRAP doesn't favor one
> > in-world content type over another.  All content types are denoted
> > merely by a type tag and there is no standard set of content types
> > required.
> >
> > So what is the real commonality between VWRAP and SL?  Currently, only
> > LLSD is reasonably compatible with SL, although LLSD might well change
> > in more than just its name if we find the current spec not
> > sufficiently powerful or lacking extensibility for our needs.
>
> Again, your making assumptions based on what you'd like to see.  If you
> really feel as strongly as you do that an alternative is appropriate I'd
> get to drafting some documents that describe it.  Otherwise IMO,
> standardizing around existing current practice is completely reasonable
> and appropriate.  Not that there isn't room for improvement of course.
> But those improvements can be incremental in nature rather than
> revolutionary.
>
>

What you refer to as my "assumptions" are nothing more than rather obvious
observations which have never been a matter of disagreement here.  Our
target for VWRAP testing is Opensim because, as I already explained, the SL
platform is outside of our control.  Indeed, Linden Lab has probably
disclaimed more than once any unwarranted expectation that they undertake to
implement VWRAP concepts, so it would be quite odd for us to insist that we
are designing a protocol that will be compatible with a new generation of
SL.

That is not something which we can claim, nor work towards.  The most we can
do is design a flexible protocol usable in many different deployments
(including commercial services), and hope that Linden Lab decides to adopt
it.  Much more important though is that our protocols serve the much broader
Internet community well, and that goes far beyond the needs of one
commercial provider.  That is a duty which we have undertaken by being
members of this IETF working group.


Morgaine.








===============================


On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Mike Dickson <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Thu, 2011-03-31 at 16:23 +0000, Morgaine wrote:
> > There is no default format, and nowhere does VWRAP deal in
> > SL-compatible grids.
>
> That's actually for the contributors to define.  There's no reason we
> can't choose to favor a direction that's compatible or at least
> complimentary with existing practice.
>
> >
> > We are defining a services-oriented architecture which is nothing like
> > that of today's SL, and we cannot for a moment assume that SL will
> > adopt it in the future, as that is their choice, not ours.
>
> You have a tendency to use "we" as this inclusive, everyone agrees with
> me so its a done deal concept.  Again wether the group chooses to
> leverage some of the concepts in SL (like LLSD for instance) is still
> open to discussion.  And protocol standard are what "we" are about here.
> Honestly if we fail to produce something that can "inter-operate" with
> SL at least to some degree I think the usefulness is minimal.
>
> > The only partly-compatible VW frameworks over which we have a small
> > amount of influence are Opensim and realXtend (which uses Opensim
> > server-side), because we can take their open source code and adapt it
> > to our protocols if we wish.  In that sense, we could be said to be
> > defining an Opensim-compatible protocol, but never an SL-compatible
> > protocol.  That would be a misapprehension.
>
> This is all about implementation and isn't related to standards work at
> all.  How what is produced here is implemented into a "product" (open
> source or not) is irrelevant. And again, wether the protocol is
> "SL-compatible" is open to discussion.  You clearly have a bias away
> from it but its not clear that's true for everyone.
>
> >
> > We occasionally say that we are defining an SL-like data architecture,
> > but even that isn't really correct since VWRAP doesn't favor one
> > in-world content type over another.  All content types are denoted
> > merely by a type tag and there is no standard set of content types
> > required.
> >
> > So what is the real commonality between VWRAP and SL?  Currently, only
> > LLSD is reasonably compatible with SL, although LLSD might well change
> > in more than just its name if we find the current spec not
> > sufficiently powerful or lacking extensibility for our needs.
>
> Again, your making assumptions based on what you'd like to see.  If you
> really feel as strongly as you do that an alternative is appropriate I'd
> get to drafting some documents that describe it.  Otherwise IMO,
> standardizing around existing current practice is completely reasonable
> and appropriate.  Not that there isn't room for improvement of course.
> But those improvements can be incremental in nature rather than
> revolutionary.
>
> Mike
>
> >
> >
> > Morgaine.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ==========================
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Dzonatas Sol <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >         Don't need to assume too much like that, Morgaine; however, we
> >         need something more of "trust domains" defined and the
> >         example(s) I wrote about fit in well as lead-in. I stated
> >         these use-cases specially to avoid the use of terminology that
> >         now exists, and this leans towards the need to center on
> >         "trust domains." I see the use of current client/server-*
> >         terminology continually to confuse us (even if some like it,
> >         not all do). If we have to think about such terminology for
> >         more than 90 seconds each time then it needs to change.
> >
> >         My side-point was that VWs may have their own object format in
> >         their world, and I'm thinking more then just the regions that
> >         exist now that the monolithic client connects. Perhaps, others
> >         only think about SL compatible grids, and don't worry about
> >         the default format.
> >
> >         Morgaine wrote:
> >                 We've maintained throughout that our protocols would
> >                 be extensible with regard to data formats, allowing
> >                 worlds and user expectations to evolve without
> >                 requiring protocol redefinition.
> >
> >                 In the area of meshes, it is very much to be expected
> >                 that COLLADA will figure strongly among the graphic
> >                 formats used (particularly since it was chosen for the
> >                 iED initiative), but it's not of any special interest
> >                 to the VWRAP protocols other than as a potential
> >                 content type.� All we have to do is to make sure that
> >                 we label each transfer with its appropriate type, and
> >                 possibly also include other metadata that may be
> >                 needed.
> >
> >                 We're certainly not standardizing what graphics are
> >                 used in virtual worlds, beyond assigning types where
> >                 they might not yet exist.� Hardwiring them would be a
> >                 recipe not for extensibility but for stagnation.�
> >                 Other bodies may be standardizing which graphics
> >                 formats are used, whereas we're trying to define
> >                 useful deployment architectures and standardizing the
> >                 protocols through which they are accessed.
> >
> >
> >                 Morgaine.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >                 ===================
> >
> >
> >
> >                 On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:34 AM, Dzonatas Sol
> >                 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> >                 wrote:
> >
> >                    If we say the conditioner basically authenticates
> >                 or re-signs an
> >                    asset from grid X to grid Y, and the refinery would
> >                 make sure the
> >                    physics of the object described by the asset is
> >                 translated from
> >                    the topology of grid X to the topology of grid Y,
> >                 then this is
> >                    basically what COLLADA expects in exchange. This
> >                 exchange is this
> >                    different from the usual import/export process. It
> >                 doesn't have to
> >                    be this exact process, as this is only an example
> >                 to us be more
> >                    familiar.
> >
> >                    It seems a complete waste to not realize that LL
> >                 has implemented
> >                    the import process and physics refinery into their
> >                 browser, and
> >                    this very feature, though not fully automated as
> >                 such, could be
> >                    used to help move assets in-between grids/v-worlds.
> >                 Since the
> >                    import is from local basis, the authentication is
> >                 not implemented.
> >                    What's to stop to basically export to DAE format on
> >                 the local
> >                    storage, from one world, and continue to import
> >                 that DAE into
> >                    another grid.
> >
> >                    Note that the refineries may be proprietary. They
> >                 may produce
> >                    non-COLLADA formats (from DAE files) that are for
> >                 optimal
> >                    render/display capability of the software
> >                 "client" (i.e. that the
> >                    end-user has to view graphics).
> >
> >                    As with Google Earth and Sony HOME, they already
> >                 have their assets
> >                    conditioned and refined for those virtual worlds
> >                 such that they
> >                    can optimally display them. The key note is not the
> >                 optimal
> >                    display, as it is about being able to exchange and
> >                 use in other
> >                    virtual worlds.
> >
> >                    The DAE format does have extensive abilities, yet
> >                 the goal of
> >                    COLLADA is still to define the basic material,
> >                 scripts, model, etc
> >                    in the most portable format. The DAE may contain
> >                 hybrid or
> >                    specific formats that is stored in the extensions,
> >                 so that custom
> >                    objects are retained/transferred.
> >
> >                    If virtual worlds start to not agree upon how they
> >                 store objects,
> >                    I see COLLADA as the default format for digital
> >                 asset exchange.
> >
> >
> >
> https://collada.org/mediawiki/index.php/COLLADA_FAQ#What_are_the_major_features_of_this_format.3F
> >
> >                    (Yes, we can put all inventory items in DAE format
> >                 through the
> >                    user-data and asset extensions, despite the format
> >                 mainly being
> >                    for 3D... just sayin')
> >
> >                    --     --- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
> >                    Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual
> >                 Reality, Consultant
> >
> >                    _______________________________________________
> >                    vwrap mailing list
> >
> >                    [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >
> >                    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >                 _______________________________________________
> >                 vwrap mailing list
> >                 [e-mail]
> >                 https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >         --
> >         --- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
> >         Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality,
> >         Consultant
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>