Re: [vwrap] Why are we standardizing the login handshake? (was RE: one question)

[Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>]

like what?

what do you not like?

an abstract type system?
capabilities?

what do you want to replace them with?

what are your interoperability objectives?

what are your architectural requirements?

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



On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Crista Lopes <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I have a feeling I am the only one taking VWRAP for what it says it is in
> the documents -- intro, authentication, etc.
> One of my main assessments was: this is full of irrelevant implementation
> details that should not be part of any protocol for interoperability.
>
>
> On 9/24/2010 3:27 PM, Morgaine wrote:
>
> The Intro document is beyond repair, and should be quoted only with extreme
> caution.
>
> If VWRAP "defines formats for describing objects and avatar shapes" then it
> will be obsolete on the day it is released, and utterly unable to stay in
> touch with worlds evolving along a thousand fronts.
>
> That's why we have SERVICES, so that such issues as objects and avatar
> shapes are entirely external to the core protocol, evolving independently,
> and negotiated on entry to each new world, or even potentially to each new
> region.  That's why regions have the capability to handle multiple assets
> services from multiple worlds, so that no central policy applies.  Defining
> fixed formats centrally would be an exercise in futility on an Internet
> scale.
>
> The Intro document represents OGP legacy, and should not be treated as more
> than that.  You have to remember that OGP was about expanding a centrally
> managed virtual world.  It bears very little relationship to what we're
> trying to achieve.  (And for that, I can only apologize --- OGP should have
> been thrown out much earlier.)
>
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
>
>
> ===================================
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Crista Lopes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> John,
>>
>> You may also want to read the intro draft.
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vwrap-intro-00
>>
>> This is in 4.4:
>>
>> "VWRAP defines formats  for describing objects and avatar shapes, but more
>> importantly it
>>   describes the mechanism by which those digital asset descriptions are
>>   transferred between client applications, agent domains and region
>>   domains."
>> ...
>> "Accessing and manipulating digital assets is  performed via capabilities
>> which expose the state of the asset to an authorized client. "
>>
>> In other words, assets are fetched by the client. So if my world pushes
>> them to the client, it's not VWRAP-compliant.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> vwrap mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>