Re: [vwrap] Assets & Avatar space

Carlo Wood <> Sat, 09 April 2011 19:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED6763A699C for <>; Sat, 9 Apr 2011 12:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.524
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1FZk++OyZgfp for <>; Sat, 9 Apr 2011 12:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E10D13A6989 for <>; Sat, 9 Apr 2011 12:35:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by (InterMail vM. 201-2260-120-106-20100312) with ESMTP id <> for <>; Sat, 9 Apr 2011 21:37:37 +0200
Received: from ([]) by with edge id VXdb1g0140FlQed01XdcDC; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 21:37:37 +0200
Received: from carlo by with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1Q8dyR-0007Ay-Ek for; Sat, 09 Apr 2011 21:37:35 +0200
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 21:37:35 +0200
From: Carlo Wood <>
Message-ID: <20110409213735.1ab8d6ef@hikaru.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.8 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=JvXQbuMnWGQeb488dJ7w43Du7THgE+O7ieb9U20/rjk= c=1 sm=0 a=WxYJGR-fJXgA:10 a=_kSIUADMT0YA:10 a=lF6S9qf5Q1oA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=BjFOTwK7AAAA:8 a=q4rX8xwiN39s7iIKTDEA:9 a=Ry-ZeTIoROrxh26pIOQA:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=lZB815dzVvQA:10 a=bW3kdApBr58A:10 a=7_umSVhk6O_MWMq5:21 a=TuO0i3JAqAC1Ck3Z:21 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Assets & Avatar space
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2011 19:35:55 -0000

On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 09:19:34 -0700
Dzonatas Sol <> wrote:

Although it should be known / is known, then I'm all for
freedom ;)... I think I have to disagree.

I think that the reason for our disagreement is that
there is a difference between "being allowed to wear" something
and "being the authority" about what you wear.

Please recall that "authority" means no more and no less
than that it is the sole source of mutating messages:
mutating messages cannot be denied: downstream is TOLD that
something changed; hence the word 'authority'.

Let me add my remaining comments below in context.

> One thing to keep in mind is that ultimately it is the avatar and not 
> the region that has the rights to wear whatever the user chooses the 
> avatar to wear. Of course, it is not implemented that way right now 
> since the grid overrides it all by default.

While I agree that the viewer, or at least the Agent, should be
the authority for protocol messages that propagate changes of
what an avatar is wearing, it is possible and therefore has to be
supported that *someone* thinks it is needed that you can't be
allowed to wear whatever you like.

You even give an example of that yourself! In a PG region you
could be disallowed to take of your clothes.  If you are in a
prison you have to wear some uniform... It's not up to use to
decide that such use case should not be supported at protocol
> It may be simpler in the future to think of only physical and phantom 
> data being sent to the grid and the local-region/local-simulator
> knows all other details the grid doesn't need to know. I think where
> this has comprehensively failed earlier by avoidance of middle-ware,
> as it appears that way. Assets are not quite split between physical
> data and everything else.

I have no idea what this paragraph means :(

> Let me know if I need to give more detail for above.

Yup, definitely ;)
> In particular, futurewise, avatar space (or space around the avatar) 
> should be completely owned by the avatar in order to make sure 
> consistent simulation occurs and there is no "can I wear these
> clothes before and after teleport" type questions.

Not sure what you mean with 'space around the avatar'? The 3D space
around an avatar is nothing to do with what they wear imho. But I'll
assume you mean "what they wear", or more in general, "their

> The answer should
> always be yes with only appropriate exceptions (adult/pg, battle
> sims/script limits, rpg, etc).

Even a single exception means the protocol has to support it, so you
are contradicting yourself here.

> This is, by the way, the dumb childish
> banning deal from... you know... and any further physics prediction
> makes it obvious what some want to avoid per their
> personal-agenda/biz-agenda rather than what's best for the
> avatar/user-experience. They cried the sky is falling (not in public)
> with loss of $$$ if it happens, and never considered the facts over
> the paranoid despair,  and called everybody stupid for any
> presentation of this. Obviously, a pinning point.

Not sure what you mean here... but it sounds like politics.
Unfortunately, we are not to make any political decisions: we have to
design a protocol that supports *every* required use case, by anyone.

> Seriously (& professionally), when you put on your clothes in the 
> morning do you ever get faced with someone that says "hay you can't
> do that! Your stupid because our business down the road will lose $$$
> if you let others see your clothes! You must wear what we allow you
> to wear! And we know you are going to walk down that road!"

This is your opinion, and might be mine... but I fail to see what
it has to do with protocol design. We will have to support a use case
where some region wants to be able to refuse certain types of

I think, therefore, that what it has to look like when you want to
change what you wear is something like this:

Agent --> Region  "Is it ok if I wear this?"
Region --> Agent  "Yes"
Agent --> Region Avatar is now wearing this.
Region --> others Avatar is now wearing this.

Note that Region is not sending back the message to the Agent,
because the Agent already made the change: the actual mutating
message is exclusively streaming away from the Agent.

If we didn't first ask the Region if it was ok, you get
the following problem(s):

Agent --> Region: I'm wearing X now!
Agent --> Region: I'm wearing Y now!
Agent --> Region: I'm wearing Z now!
Region --> Agent: You are not allowed to wear Y!

and the Agent has a problem synchronizing itself with what
the rest of the world sees: the refusal message has become a mutating
message (the Agent has to change back) and is travelling UPSTREAM
towards the authority. This leads to problems.

> All other disagreements of ability to render the clothes falls-back
> to the default conditioners and refineries (i.e. collada). That being
> it is the local-renderer that really displays the avatar, and the
> abilities to render the avatar is appropriately the onus of the
> viewer technology, not the grid technology. The viewer can display a
> lower-rez OBJ, refined from the collada file, rather than a higher
> rez format. (Of course, not all assets are collada, yet I have to
> remind someone of this as futurewise and
> ideal-consideration/from-use-case before another endless...).
> _______________________________________________ vwrap mailing list

Carlo Wood <>