Re: [vwrap] Call for a vote on interop BETWEEN independent virtual worlds or not

help me understand your statement.

you are interested in the ability to deploy independent services, but
you think that defining services fails to achieve any measure of
virtual world interoperability.

these two statements seem to be in contradiction. either you're
interested in service deployers being able to deploy individual
services or you're not. if you support the use case of people being
able to deploy individual services, then you have to be able to define
those services. if you don't define those services, then how do you
define what a service deployer needs to support?

--
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * OhMeadhbh@gmail.com

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Hurliman, John <john.hurliman@intel.com> wrote:
> Yes, I am definitely interested in the ability to deploy independent services. I don't see how a stated goal of virtual world interoperability will actually preclude that possibility though. Specifically, your quote:
>
> "if we are defining a virtual world protocol, we have to enumerate explicit combinations of services which are suitable for deploying independently."
>
> I understand where you are coming from but I disagree. The acronym of this group (Virtual World Region Agent Protocol) already defines three terms that are highly specific to the simulation of a virtual world, but I don't see that acronym as preventing me from deploying an independent content delivery network that simulates neither regions nor agents (or a virtual world at all) but is still VWRAP-compatible.
>
> I think defining a service-level interop protocol that fails to achieve any measure of virtual world interoperability is a more real concern than a goal of virtual world interop precluding independent service deployments.
>
> John
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Meadhbh Hamrick [mailto:ohmeadhbh@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 2:44 PM
>> To: Hurliman, John
>> Cc: vwrap@ietf.org
>> Subject: 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
>> >
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>