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

[Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>]

Hey Barry,

so it seems like there's at least some interest for rechartering.
what's the mechanics for that? do we call for a new BoF or just hash
out a new charter on the mailing list?

-cheers
-meadhbh

--
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]



On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Vaughn Deluca <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Although i have only been operating in the fringe of this group, i
> would like to argue for #2
>
> It clear that some refocussing and consensus building is needed, but
> we should at least  give that a try. To me it seems definitely to
> early to give up. If we try #2  it will become clear if  #3 can
> indedeed be avoided.
>
> I see christina's point of starting at the basis, and fixing SSO
> first. However, I feel that from the perspective of VWRAP SSO is
> actually a well described sub-problem that can be left to others to
> solve, while we focus on the specific  of avatars and assets.
>
> In  terms of actual commitment, i think the wiki idea is great, and i
> will try to free some time to contribute there in the near future.
>
> --Vaughn
>
> On 1/15/11, Cristina Videira Lopes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I'm leaning towards #2 and #3 simultaneously :)
>> Let me explain.
>>
>> The goal of achieving virtual world interoperability always felt like a
>> niche goal to me, but one that, given the nature of these applications,
>> touched on a couple of more foundational issues: single sign ons and Web
>> services security -- in short, federations that cross enterprise boundaries.
>>
>> There is a variety of implementations for SSOs out there, more recently
>> the one in the Hypergrid, and a variety of ways of securing Web
>> services. But no standards that I know of -- apart from the SOAP stuff.
>> Perhaps this group should band with others who may be interested in
>> standardizing these things -- SSO seems like it's ripe for that. In
>> other words, let's join with others on common foundational issues,
>> rather than separating from them along the lines of application domains
>> (VWs vs everything else).
>>
>> In that sense I'd argue for #3, because doing an IETF SSO working group
>> properly would require substantial change and outreach. There's a long
>> history in SSOs. The good news is that from what I read in [1], there is
>> now some interest in the IETF on this.
>>
>> However, some issues are application-domain-specific -- e.g. avatars,
>> assets;  in the Web model, these are MIME type issues. They need
>> standardization too -- or at least generalized agreement on the data
>> that gets passed around.
>>
>> In that sense I'd argue for #2. There are MIME type standards that this
>> group can define specifically for virtual worlds. That's one part of
>> interoperability that only ppl in the VW field can tackle.
>>
>> Crista / Diva
>>
>> [1] http://isoc.org/wp/ietfjournal/?p=1715
>>
>> On 1/14/2011 9:13 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> Good day, all.
>>> The chairs and area directors have been talking about the status and
>>> future of the VWRAP working group.  Owing to changes in focus and
>>> commitment by both companies and individuals, things have been
>>> languishing, and it's not clear to us that we have what we need to get
>>> the chartered work done.  The introduction document looked close to
>>> ready, until some controversy on its content and direction brewed, and
>>> the result of that discussion was inconclusive.  The normative drafts
>>> that have seen some implementation (type system, launch message, etc.)
>>> also appear nearly technically complete, but some issues have been
>>> identified and not resolved by subsequent discussion, consensus, and
>>> editing.
>>>
>>> At this point, the mailing list has been too quiet for too long, all
>>> the draft documents have expired, and we need to make a decision about
>>> what to do.
>>>
>>> The chairs and ADs see three possibilities:
>>>
>>> 1. Find new document editors, pick up the chartered work with the
>>> existing document base, and get moving again.  Get the introduction
>>> document finished by the end of February, and make progress on the
>>> others.
>>>
>>> 2. Come to consensus on significant changes to the direction of the
>>> VWRAP specs, find new document editors, revamp the introduction
>>> document, and get that finished, or substantially so, by the end of
>>> February.  Have some clear consensus, clear direction, and enthusiasm
>>> to continue.  Consider rechartering, if the direction has changed
>>> enough to require that.
>>>
>>> 3. Accept that we no longer have enough core participation, consensus,
>>> and enthusiasm to make progress, and close the working group.  Future
>>> work in the virtual world area could charter a new working group
>>> later.
>>>
>>> Note that options 1 and 2 both require that we demonstrate sufficient
>>> energy and participation to really get work done and to demonstrate
>>> consensus.  That means that we need people to commit to
>>> writing/editing documents, actively discussing the technical issues
>>> with the goal of reaching consensus on the content of the documents,
>>> and, importantly, reviewing documents and showing that we have
>>> consensus.  Three or four participants isn't enough, and conflicting
>>> ideas that can't be resolved into a consensus-based position won't
>>> work.
>>>
>>> What say you, VWRAP participants?  Can we pick up the work and make
>>> progress?  Shall we close the working group, and perhaps consider
>>> something in future?  Do you favour options 1, 2, or 3?  Or do you see
>>> an alternative option you'd like to bring up?
>>>
>>> Barry and Joshua, VWRAP chairs
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> vwrap mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> vwrap mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>