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

Morgaine <> Wed, 30 March 2011 15:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECEF83A690D for <>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:21:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.874
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.874 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OWGj96Ub+gGm for <>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:21:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C225A3A6A57 for <>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwg5 with SMTP id 5so1032883qwg.31 for <>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=AWluGGg+DjfrVUg13/HFSC+gV3H2cmbdrkTYjb7nF8k=; b=oat/4CqdaXPtZ/84azFpgdhqHeQ9W+lyL96ncMgRmEEQ7PNW88+U8H/lmCNlrQNJbY x7EteTvgFStGHhZyPc35Q7O6d//v8fY0cfi1SlbM+sPIxKY/4isxjnPuu7TmssJO4yjE XT0/zwStbFIPTXDUrgcdImdw1r8oL27s0GUUs=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=NmMUVRtT37DFPu2YcNNnzktW2Vp6kEceb+CiLXgwRPZwcV2a8Hki+sKq8Wx/HuMGa1 5q4yyZKEUJd3TltAQw0s36jV8zIQ7NCUO/8uPcK/k4MNE8HZoVjvHyqTzpCipd/vduiH I6paRCcBNa9Ky4Q5t1KNkmsJ0qNecMKccMD/Y=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id m36mr1155173qck.109.1301498599410; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:23:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:23:19 +0100
Message-ID: <>
From: Morgaine <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00235429d356b1a93b049fb4c138
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Statements of Consensus. Flexibity First.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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, 30 Mar 2011 15:21:49 -0000

Mike, if you don't need the flexibility available in a protocol, simply
don't use the flexible features that you don't want.  But denying those who
require a flexible and extensible protocol with a degree of future-proofing
to it is, I believe, not in line with the goals expressed here from the
start of this process.

Perhaps closed enterprises don't need flexibility, but open communities
certainly do, and they are typically long-lived and hence require the
ability to evolve and to adapt to change.  And open communities most
certainly need interoperability between their many virtual worlds.

The needs of inwardly-focused companies do not override the needs of open
Internet communities.  This IETF protocol project serves both sets of
interests, and it will need to satisfy both sets of requirements.



On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Dickson, Mike (ISS Software) <> wrote:

> On 03/30/2011 03:14 AM, Carlo Wood wrote:
> > Perhaps we should also start a wiki page (it's nice
> > to have a stable url that one can refer to, which still
> > is editable; that give me at least a feeling of progress),
> > about statements that we reached consensus over.
> We don't need to make a process that forces agreement under a set of terms.
>  That's not how the IETF
> works.  We need consensus and documents.  As a contributor I'll choose to
> agree or disagree based on
> the topic.  And in some cases I'm not sure I'd choose flexibility over
> stability, etc.
> It seems to me we've sorted drifted to a point we're there are 2 camps and
> a proposal was made for how to
> deal with it.  There are those that want to work on service level interop.
>  And others want to define the
> whole concept of virtual world interop. IMO we need to either agree that
> seperation exists and arrange the
> docs so it describes the 2 work streams or agree that we can't agree and
> disband.  The service level interop.
> is a subset of the other and given our track record I prefer to walk rather
> than run.  And I don't buy the "evil
> corporate interests" argument.  Ideally if  we do this right there *should*
> be some participation from business
> interests that are looking at the space.
> So in summary, no, I'm not going to agree to a fixed process that favours
> flexibility.  The IETF already has
> a process for how this stuff gets worked.   And we need to decide what
> we're working on and move on. I
> think there's room for 2 work streams here and that personally would be my
> vote.  I'll put my energy into
> service level interop personally.
> Mike (speaking as me and not for HP)
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list