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

[Cristina Videira Lopes <[e-mail]>]

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