Re: [vwrap] Statements of Consensus. Flexibity First.

Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com> Tue, 05 April 2011 16:41 UTC

Return-Path: <dzonatas@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 D70273A6965 for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.098, 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 sjOIwIqUqYCH for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0213D3A6968 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 09:41:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn39 with SMTP id 39so699899iwn.31 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 09:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=c/b6MpK2rJZEO3CGgpwxnys3iAZqEZ7Dk2BtgC0/+88=; b=ZOG/OkQWX9Bkaw+urTNgfnUvDFxp1KpPLgw+P9ArQy5sd4S2Vee+wjbpvrxqgYe/s1 GtFaXCz5pNQ9o8ogK3MwYIkULDfXs2Yztce09Kz+Hg3V/Uo/+036qPLUkCzdT1nZILW+ hl227hmgrtKmPsj4VH432nIp7y36tOgJDjZFg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ua8s7wt3hdIq5taSi5LPFesvlhr0ewmBoFQqcvrLE46vPVH4JAtdQ2XuOSGDUCqEyw vzEP+/SxgcqtWWXgUuFIXvIM5lCGA9bjGtnj1OXENtUaad/ykBBoGouvUxSohM7qKypD 8+EEeB6TKlJcdCzNhSxy+SpB1WDrtGs1bX04I=
Received: by 10.231.116.92 with SMTP id l28mr9099709ibq.20.1302021811188; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 09:43:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.50] (adsl-71-137-195-251.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net [71.137.195.251]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 19sm4574026ibx.1.2011.04.05.09.43.29 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 05 Apr 2011 09:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4D9B46E3.4050202@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 09:44:19 -0700
From: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100329)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Izzy Alanis <izzyalanis@gmail.com>
References: <20110330011458.GB8908@alinoe.com> <4D931434.2030206@boroon.dasgupta.ch> <4646639E08F58B42836FAC24C94624DD92FDE22F3F@GVW0433EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net> <20110401161332.37ca0f9e@hikaru.localdomain> <AANLkTimcMbrJzXYTvs0cszn+rhH4ygEPvzvLwu94gr-4@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=hL5YTAW9_V7EA3C3fiknU0o_ARA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=hL5YTAW9_V7EA3C3fiknU0o_ARA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: vwrap@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Statements of Consensus. Flexibity First.
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: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:41:48 -0000

Izzy,

After the months that have gone by I would like to see what we can 
implement. I pointed out asset services as the obvious piece we can 
unitize somehow.

I think we got the login process documented enough to move in this 
direction. It just seems stuck at the actual transfer of assets due to 
the load of comments about this main task.

Some implementation would help us take further steps to document more.

Izzy Alanis wrote:
> Things that have *consensus* become part of the protocol. If changes
> meet reasonable criteria (such as the above), they will be more likely
> have consensus. Changes that do things like break backwards
> compatibility or limit 'flexibility' will likely be hard to get
> consensus on.


-- 
--- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant