Re: [vwrap] is the group still interested in LLSD or DSD?

Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com> Wed, 04 May 2011 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <dzonatas@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FAB4E0750 for <vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 May 2011 08:56:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.389, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KXCHVtx-qp-b for <vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 May 2011 08:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pv0-f172.google.com (mail-pv0-f172.google.com [74.125.83.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA62BE0786 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 May 2011 08:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pvh1 with SMTP id 1so720697pvh.31 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 May 2011 08:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=EHMJrSprbbHb3WYu9RA598PSMFOdmSf6IMKG3fyKqDA=; b=KbVUkuWLjUiq/f3RoDUSWY4gPWnbBx2QF8U+VfZ1N8enSZnggmaz+eme+hZErOviuG tCBmldt03kanXfhcdC+5+du8KPb6tSqGYlMaHYLqV6+5phvLEeH1TsX4iWztSdRb+/su iJA/4bChl8TVs2iLjvHRerpoiKFX98XO86/8o=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=w2VW+WRb8E+0fB2ZLK5ewUZI1Ah90J8YgGF/TlWKsmcr+wdjrlJQAQ5He913e+nX+Q rR4APigmzspt/avrBADuxL2LQNQhaUnwaPYxKNmnSI+ICDXShsbEJ6ZvxpC6ut1p6BuJ rxFZ7MFijWUaRIpvYtUhoglpCLC8mPqJns77A=
Received: by 10.68.49.136 with SMTP id u8mr1671047pbn.170.1304524614363; Wed, 04 May 2011 08:56:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.50] (adsl-70-133-70-225.dsl.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [70.133.70.225]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l3sm808732pbq.75.2011.05.04.08.56.52 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 04 May 2011 08:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4DC17704.3020201@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2011 08:55:48 -0700
From: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110307 Icedove/3.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=g9T5q5bVgytpxRxuE=Oc9iG2F9w@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=K8-6oL-JJoPCfz0JjDpaRBpeOyg@mail.gmail.com> <4DC15504.3090503@gmail.com> <BANLkTikay4xhQoZs2L0uRLSXgUMfCE9yfA@mail.gmail.com> <4DC160F0.1030201@gmail.com> <BANLkTikTYpLHM=GAeGAVfufqZ5XT0FSAzw@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=kjBSuMjPcgfXTUvZ3iwmS1bN50Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=kjBSuMjPcgfXTUvZ3iwmS1bN50Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: vwrap@ietf.org, Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [vwrap] is the group still interested in LLSD or DSD?
X-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Wed, 04 May 2011 15:56:55 -0000

It doesn't block "evolution of transported elementary types", as the 
transport layer is underneath the application layer. As demonstrated 
(and proven) with flow in XML, we can easily keep the high-level types 
in the higher layer. LLSD is merely the high-level types, not overall 
primitives.

On 05/04/2011 08:49 AM, Morgaine wrote:
> That's a far clearer question than you asked initially, and so its 
> easier to give a specific answer.� (Indeed, I already did before, in 
> the second part of my response.)
>
> While I don't know exactly what DSD is (an RFC would be excellent!), 
> if it's just LLSD with another name then the type system of its 
> underlying ADT is not extensible, and therefore it won't support new 
> types going forward into the future.� From my perspective, a 
> non-extensible type system is *not sufficient* for VWRAP because it 
> blocks the evolution of transported elementary types.
>
> And LLSD is actually worse than merely non-extensible, because it 
> isn't flexible either, especially in providing just a single integer 
> type.� That's not enough.
>
> We need to design for tomorrow, not just for today.
>
>
> Morgaine.

-- 
--- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant