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
>