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

Yes, I am definitely interested in the ability to deploy independent services. I don't see how a stated goal of virtual world interoperability will actually preclude that possibility though. Specifically, your quote:

"if we are defining a virtual world protocol, we have to enumerate explicit combinations of services which are suitable for deploying independently."

I understand where you are coming from but I disagree. The acronym of this group (Virtual World Region Agent Protocol) already defines three terms that are highly specific to the simulation of a virtual world, but I don't see that acronym as preventing me from deploying an independent content delivery network that simulates neither regions nor agents (or a virtual world at all) but is still VWRAP-compatible.

I think defining a service-level interop protocol that fails to achieve any measure of virtual world interoperability is a more real concern than a goal of virtual world interop precluding independent service deployments.

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meadhbh Hamrick [mailto:ohmeadhbh@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 2:44 PM
> To: Hurliman, John
> Cc: vwrap@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [vwrap] Call for a vote on interop BETWEEN independent virtual
> worlds or not
> 
> john. you used to say that you were interested in being able to deploy
> individual services, but this last comment seems to imply that you're more
> interested in deploying complete virtual worlds.
> 
> could you read my recent comment and tell me if you think there's merit in
> the idea of defining individual services that can be deployed individually?
> 
> what i really want is to ensure that we don't specify ourselves into a corner
> where you have to deploy all services (auth service, presence service, chat
> service, object update service, etc.) in order to deploy any service.
> 
> i want to enable a future where someone could, for instance, operate a
> "VWRAP Compliant Asset Service" independently of other services (like auth,
> presence, simulation, etc.)
> 
> -cheers
> -meadhbh
> --
> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * OhMeadhbh@gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Hurliman, John
> <john.hurliman@intel.com> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: vwrap-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:vwrap-bounces@ietf.org] On
> >> Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> >> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 2:08 PM
> >> To: vwrap@ietf.org
> >> 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
> >> >> <jef@openmetaverse.org>
> >> >> 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > vwrap mailing list
> > vwrap@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
> >