Re: [vwrap] Call for a vote on interop BETWEEN independent virtual worlds or not

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@hp.com> wrote:

Put another way we're not specifying a mechanism for interconnection between
very different technologies (or more appropriately approaches to virtual
worlds).

Unfortunately, no Mike, it's much worse than that.  Even if the technologies
of the worlds in question are not only compatible but *IDENTICAL*, Meadhbh
claims that we are not creating a protocol for interop BETWEEN those
worlds.  At all, whatsoever.

This cannot be allowed to stand, otherwise the entire purpose of VWRAP as an
interop protocol disappears, and instead VWRAP becomes a protocol for
building standalone, isolated worlds.  That is not what we're here for, and
it has never been --- we have affirmed the goal of interoperation between
VWs time and again on this list, repeatedly.

This issue needs to be cleared up without ambiguity.  We can't have a
prolific draft writer writing drafts that do not reflect the goals voiced by
almost everyone in this group since OGPX/VWRAP began.  Crista's post is
merely the latest expression of concern of many.

There is a clear disconnect here between the goal of non-interoperating
worlds, and the much more useful goal of VW interoperation that virtually
everyone else has been discussing and desiring.  We already have
non-interoperating worlds, lots of them!  Note that even Joshua mentions
interoperation of VWs in his latest post a few weeks ago, in which he
welcomed discussion of "*protocols for data transport between virtual world
instances*" --
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap/current/msg00253.html .

This needs resolving formally, otherwise our progress on resolving the
issues of VW interop is completely blocked.

Morgaine.

================================

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@hp.com> wrote:

>  On 09/19/2010 10:41 PM, Morgaine wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 5:09 AM, Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
>
>  secondly, VWRAP is not now, nor has it ever been a protocol to enable
> interoperability BETWEEN virtual worlds.
> ...
> in short, the consensus of this group has generally been to describe
> the mechanisms one could use to build a single virtual world but does
> not dictate that this world be a singleton.
>
>
> This does not reflect any consensus expressed in this group whatsoever.
>
> I suspect we're getting wrapped around the axle on terminology and what
> "single virtual world" means.  At least I'd like to interpret it that way as
> it then matches the discussion over the past months.  Put another way we're
> not specifying a mechanism for interconnection between very different
> technologies (or more appropriately approaches to virtual worlds).  It's a
> single virtual world because it shares a single set of assumptions about how
> the services that make it up work together to provide services.  If I change
> in a significant way a service that doesn't match what VWRAP documents then
> I'm not able to participate in the VWRAP virtual world any longer.
>
> The comment about a singleton is on target I think with this
> interpretation.  I can create a walled garden that doesn't interconnect with
> other "services".  It's using VWRAP and so a part of the VWRAP "Virtual
> World".
>
> If thats not a correct interpretation then yes we have a huge issue.  If it
> is correct then perhaps we need to refine how we define terms since its
> caused alot of confusion.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>