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

Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com> Tue, 03 May 2011 13:53 UTC

Return-Path: <dzonatas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3363E0694 for <vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 May 2011 06:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
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=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N0H6oCRENfe9 for <vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 May 2011 06:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-px0-f170.google.com (mail-px0-f170.google.com [209.85.212.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A4B9E081D for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 May 2011 06:53:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pxi19 with SMTP id 19so155790pxi.15 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 May 2011 06:53:45 -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 :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; d=gmail.com; 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 10.68.64.193 with SMTP id q1mr4604258pbs.488.1304430825538; Tue, 03 May 2011 06:53:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.50] ([70.133.70.225]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z7sm58069pbm.53.2011.05.03.06.53.43 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 03 May 2011 06:53:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4DC008A5.3090002@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 06:52:37 -0700
From: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110307 Icedove/3.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "vwrap@ietf.org" <vwrap@ietf.org>
References: <AANLkTi=hAM-UowEcXBdtZ3y9KK_cQ5wUsWJKTv=rOXT_@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> <AANLkTik5SNwv9jEf1QBwOoji0GTYNRvPdiT=P2pDfJ44@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinLZNps6h=x16gCgexaJFXdAYPgBdaj4UGs73S0@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimhWbyQMKWTbtu-8ci1Q39igXSEYHFkb_Vyqx+N@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimQavrUESFHZkTA8hF1pOiU0v4szX-Q6ejEjef9@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=9rE5fEnT3GeAk6_+8u_USpO3KmaFqjVcL5LS1@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimSJa8b2_+=TvSE9R3+aPatgLhF0rM_P8Bh0SgL@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTim69a+pY0vaHzCnZjK4OpsE+SFW=240ETRkHpXP@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinFAcsSWjJhBr0oA2nxL5BNbfa-jeUUoycXFTuM@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTikrUgEYUMhzox32itZuwmJnMs4aRw@mail.gmail.com> <4DBFA909.3080009@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DBFA909.3080009@gmail.com>
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-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 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 http://test-ipv6.com/
>
> ...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
>> vwrap@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>
>
>


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