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

Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@hp.com> Wed, 30 March 2011 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <mike.dickson@hp.com>
X-Original-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D4AF3A6BAB for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:44:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.292
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.292 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.307, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HiO7z+wyz3+J for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com (cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com [75.180.132.120]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C0F73A6BA9 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 10:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=Nm3SJc7L3wlcojC9snsyzORkYWw1JOu3BeZkTeIwPUk= c=1 sm=0 a=SNAFxGGoWQUA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=E1l+YgTSNfk5lq7wdBf7xA==:17 a=ZKLc-dHVtmuyFMiBmSoA:9 a=aFBtd6esOODPLeR7RIwcuVzvsaEA:4 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=E1l+YgTSNfk5lq7wdBf7xA==:117
X-Cloudmark-Score: 0
X-Originating-IP: 174.100.47.252
Received: from [174.100.47.252] ([174.100.47.252:58412] helo=[192.168.0.101]) by cdptpa-oedge02.mail.rr.com (envelope-from <mike.dickson@hp.com>) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id 9C/F7-11439-D5C639D4; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:46:06 +0000
From: Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@hp.com>
To: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D936430.4090401@gmail.com>
References: <20110330011458.GB8908@alinoe.com> <4D931434.2030206@boroon.dasgupta.ch> <4646639E08F58B42836FAC24C94624DD92FDE22F3F@GVW0433EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net> <AANLkTimaA3qcKOUUjQzvq86R1UMvamTc4yJh4NBMp_Gq@mail.gmail.com> <1301499645.12359.10.camel@mdickson-hplinux> <4D93620C.3000505@gmail.com> <1301502034.12359.19.camel@mdickson-hplinux> <4D936430.4090401@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:46:03 -0400
Message-ID: <1301507163.12359.21.camel@mdickson-hplinux>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 (2.32.2-1.fc14)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "vwrap@ietf.org" <vwrap@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Statements of Consensus. Flexibity First.
X-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:44:28 -0000

On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 17:11 +0000, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
> Mike Dickson wrote:
> > [...] So
> > agreeing in advance that we should focus on "flexibility" doesn't help.
> > It simply derails the important discussion about what we're talking
> > about; wether service level interoperability is what we need to be
> > focused on or something more (or both as 2 work streams).
> 
> This pretty much concludes we need solid definition of "service level 
> interoperability" due to the fact that it is being used flexibly at the 
> moment to whatever best interest of said-defined parties. I know 
> everyone hates to hear it that way, yet let's not future push away by 
> such newer terminology.
> 
> Documents exist that define partitions to region/agent protocols, so why 
> can't we start there? Are they too drafty?
> 

If we can get agreement amongst a set of folks that want to work from
that perspective (I do) then I agree that starting with existing
"service" definitions and the partitioning of work into services and
protocols is the appropriate place to (re)start.

Mike