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

["Hurliman, John" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 2:08 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [vwrap] Call for a vote on interop BETWEEN independent virtual
> worlds or not
> 
> Putting a finer point on what Joshua said:
> 
> >> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Jonathan Freedman
> >> <[e-mail]>
> >> wrote:
> >> From what I can tell the drafts do support interoperability between
> >> the same *class* of virtual world. The catch is that the language
> >> needs to be significantly clearer.
> >
> > The group's goals are formally described in the charter:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/vwrap/charter/
> > ... which, based on previous iterations of this discussion, we
> > carefully crafted to not try and nail down what a "virtual world" was
> > so as not to offend those who have an investment in any particular reading
> of that term.
> 
> Indeed, and I think we are largely arguing about something we agree on,
> and, as Meadhbh and others have said, are stuck on the language.
> If we can get to the point where we *do* agree that the issue is just (or
> mostly) language, we can work on sorting out the language, and get un-
> stuck.
> 
> As I understand the charter and the discussion leading up to it, we're arguing
> about what we *mean* by "virtual world".  Some want "multiple virtual
> worlds" to interoperate using vwrap; others are *defining* a single virtual
> world as the set of *regions* that interoperate using vwrap.
> 
> I suggest that these are saying the same thing, that (in this regard, at least)
> we have the same goal, and that these two definitions largely collapse into
> one.
> 
> Am I wrong, here?
> 
> Barry, as chair

That's my current interpretation, thank you for attempting to distill this down. I think that any differences between those two sets of terminology will manifest as policy and not protocol.

John