Re: [vwrap] Statements of Consensus. Flexibity First.

"Dickson, Mike (ISS Software)" <> Wed, 30 March 2011 14:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 118543A6936 for <>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xc7inOdvGLPq for <>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A28F3A67FC for <>; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 07:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8AF638A74; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:28:26 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:27:28 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:27:27 +0000
From: "Dickson, Mike (ISS Software)" <>
To: Boroondas Gupte <>, "" <>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:27:27 +0000
Thread-Topic: [vwrap] Statements of Consensus. Flexibity First.
Thread-Index: AcvuzdvDoTMIzAzjRd6PpNXXSWIuOQAF1q2E
Message-ID: <>
References: <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Statements of Consensus. Flexibity First.
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: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:26:49 -0000

On 03/30/2011 03:14 AM, Carlo Wood wrote:
> Perhaps we should also start a wiki page (it's nice
> to have a stable url that one can refer to, which still
> is editable; that give me at least a feeling of progress),
> about statements that we reached consensus over.

We don't need to make a process that forces agreement under a set of terms.  That's not how the IETF 
works.  We need consensus and documents.  As a contributor I'll choose to agree or disagree based on
the topic.  And in some cases I'm not sure I'd choose flexibility over stability, etc.

It seems to me we've sorted drifted to a point we're there are 2 camps and a proposal was made for how to
deal with it.  There are those that want to work on service level interop.  And others want to define the
whole concept of virtual world interop. IMO we need to either agree that seperation exists and arrange the 
docs so it describes the 2 work streams or agree that we can't agree and disband.  The service level interop.
is a subset of the other and given our track record I prefer to walk rather than run.  And I don't buy the "evil 
corporate interests" argument.  Ideally if  we do this right there *should* be some participation from business
interests that are looking at the space.

So in summary, no, I'm not going to agree to a fixed process that favours flexibility.  The IETF already has
a process for how this stuff gets worked.   And we need to decide what we're working on and move on. I 
think there's room for 2 work streams here and that personally would be my vote.  I'll put my energy into
service level interop personally.

Mike (speaking as me and not for HP)