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

[Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>]

yes.

i believe we are in agreement on all these points.

now that we know we're in agreement, i'll stop bickering about how we
need "service level interop."

i'm happy to say we need interop between worlds, as long as we write
down that "interop between worlds" includes the four points below.

-cheers
-meadhbh
--
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]



On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Hurliman, John <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Yes, I am interested in service deployers being able to deploy individual services.
> Yes, I support the use case of people being able to deploy individual services.
> Yes, I wish to define those services.
> And finally,
> Yes, I wish to define a suite of services that meets some definition of the broader virtual world interoperability goal.
>
> Does that clear up any contradictions?
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Meadhbh Hamrick [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 3:18 PM
>> To: Hurliman, John
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [vwrap] Call for a vote on interop BETWEEN independent virtual
>> worlds or not
>>
>> help me understand your statement.
>>
>> you are interested in the ability to deploy independent services, but you
>> think that defining services fails to achieve any measure of virtual world
>> interoperability.
>>
>> these two statements seem to be in contradiction. either you're interested
>> in service deployers being able to deploy individual services or you're not. if
>> you support the use case of people being able to deploy individual services,
>> then you have to be able to define those services. if you don't define those
>> services, then how do you define what a service deployer needs to support?
>>
>> --
>> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
>> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Hurliman, John
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > 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:[e-mail]]
>> >> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 2:44 PM
>> >> To: Hurliman, John
>> >> Cc: [e-mail]
>> >> 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/ * [e-mail]
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Hurliman, John
>> >> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >> >> -----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
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > vwrap mailing list
>> >> > [e-mail]
>> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>> >> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > vwrap mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>> >
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>