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

Dzonatas Sol <> Tue, 03 May 2011 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3363E0694 for <>; Tue, 3 May 2011 06:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N0H6oCRENfe9 for <>; Tue, 3 May 2011 06:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A4B9E081D for <>; Tue, 3 May 2011 06:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pxi19 with SMTP id 19so155790pxi.15 for <>; Tue, 03 May 2011 06:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=5xdL/njgOTysO5jXJJj6Kb4AZ1IwRh+5sa+SXh65UME=; b=FuypqIszJl/8IOSts02Uut85wQD+hbczjKXLbI2HVWbofvintz/5PmJYFWazudbKmO G/Qt+NDDJzKZgk3Fw4f9t14g6dpW7h0Hr5FeVLwfrBVR90YT2EsaGosB3RQUgEUVHRPj TuD32OotG/ooSob67djPFswaBVYTGXWp1GcDM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=h+IO5w+5NXNvQaX2j4QYt9/OWDfMYdcVSNExMiM8KdRCnGNJvBVETH0ckwsU26QaLU V3QeFYUJaPwjaG0M9OIMOX0+1tg1nj0JjH2JKPhZWeEdfwR5UWjN33OeKixzqCKgkjJr lNbgNqh0fd7ogGWS15VritreEr736CSnk1tps=
Received: by with SMTP id q1mr4604258pbs.488.1304430825538; Tue, 03 May 2011 06:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPS id z7sm58069pbm.53.2011. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 03 May 2011 06:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 06:52:37 -0700
From: Dzonatas Sol <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110307 Icedove/3.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Status and future of the VWRAP working group
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: Tue, 03 May 2011 13:53:46 -0000

Meant to add some purpose to that last message: how to see overall 
current trends without the envelope of proprietary or institutionalized 
mechanisms, and identify region-agent transistions in media.

I did try to scrape people's simulated affinity of virtual worlds (if we 
re-charter); although, sim-usage is easier to explain and "play" with 
real-time concepts.

My front-end workstation is already encapsulated in 3D with current 
protocols, and I can't grasp why continue to put another system for 3D 
"awesome" simulation within another 3D simulation within the 3D viewer 
within 2D browser in a 2D window in the 3D monitor on a 3D network (with 
various protocols on protocols) in the real 3D world.

Thanks, I hope this is clearer.  More later....

On 05/03/2011 12:04 AM, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
> To further zoom in past to now, I wonder if we should generally 
> revisit & predict IPv4 *.net addresses have code-behind/IL that can be 
> cached or shared as assets, so we can assume to sandbox *.net when in 
> doubt. Assume IPv4 *.com addresses have code-behind/script secured on 
> site or certified for transience. Assume IPv4 *.org addresses are 
> web-fronts, proxies, gateways, and legacy. License issues 'can be 
> resolved', diplomatically, by use of *.org as transition from *.edu 
> "graduation" vitae.
> For virtualization, the significance here is XML element compression 
> (with pattern kinetics and shared tokenization), which further means 
> something to signal processors (or on the wire|stream|pipeline). 
> Others may already have realized "what if there were already given 
> common XML tokens for each TLD based on above" and even though the XML 
> tag name is the same, the token value may differ for context (and 
> precursorial types). If you follow, the differences in tokens values 
> may act like pre-compressed interop states or less than volatile 
> expect-states.
> Hmmm....  think I avoided terminology of quantum-jargon, dynamic 
> compilers, and trinary arithmetics in the above.
> So I came up for a breath of air, and looked at
> ...then wondered about the viewer in a browser, or browser in a 
> viewer, and reviewed the above ideology again (and fell-back to 
> "frames" possibility and windows "surface" probability).
> On 04/30/2011 09:45 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> That said, we need to be leading this discussion on consensus that can
>>> be documented and posted. �And we need to focus on that and accomplish
>>> it soon, for a vague but near-term value of "soon".
>> We had a good bit of discussion in early April.  Now that we're at the
>> end of April, and the discussions seem to have stopped for the last
>> couple of weeks, I'd like a progress report.  Has there been any work
>> on coming to consensus on the direction the group wants to take?  Any
>> progress on consensus for the contents of an intro/overview document?
>> Barry, as chair
>> _______________________________________________
>> vwrap mailing list

--- ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant