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

Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com> Fri, 24 September 2010 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B4853A6A91 for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.786
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.786 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.190, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RWnpLSQ1StwB for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D06563A6A8C for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwc9 with SMTP id 9so2405194qwc.31 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=1bVQctmCbP+oXkOvqtQYSpiPQCp0LKzhtOEPE/rMHLY=; b=eDLR8ox9dDjCeR7ZT0GxohB8jYpbtnjgEVgwQnRbbN6SAZsar9HIDn4kwBTlkISkfQ dPiBhbshfh2IvJwTUv3+ReQnNppzmOFdfNoaOE+h4rPoe9s+YqVZ07neZX9fmWQrbVDi 6JU6DJsM/d7WUl7TG9NafKvcVx3pkapVJ7paw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=slSnqB9lzoMDERGkVVtZNfvzia2HqDX5XX0gLiOrvCDqorgIl3n9wM4++WmRGJYKmL Do7vq7ENt+D4IE23aJ6Q5+2Hc+Lg5EOwpx94S4vhSdT8huOlUzG0C/vYr+7ojZgg9wfq IyQW4x6kqsOdrXOUycbLsG1fx40c9EDG7ftro=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.189.134 with SMTP id de6mr3047721qcb.51.1285367240127; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.232.69 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 15:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4C9D20F5.2020507@ics.uci.edu>
References: <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933D012AD7E06A@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com> <4C9D20F5.2020507@ics.uci.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 23:27:20 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTimyffd6xSCKRTySypEDcM=MSsuJZeZVCp3oY3pQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
To: Crista Lopes <lopes@ics.uci.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016363b93c2c0f509049108e1dc
Cc: vwrap@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Why are we standardizing the login handshake? (was RE: one question)
X-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap>
List-Post: <mailto:vwrap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:26:49 -0000

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 <lopes@ics.uci.edu> 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
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>