Re: [vwrap] Moving startup documents into the working group

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 3:01 AM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

>
> i think the idea here is that it's in scope because it establishes a
> session between a client and a virtual world. so it's part of
> "interop" because (in theory) you'll have different VWRAP clients
> getting descriptors of where to rez avatars from different web based
> systems (wikipedia, facebook, etc.) and trying to get them to talk to
> different server implementations (OpenSim, Simian, Beyon, etc.)
>


That's an excellent reason, Meadhbh!

Anything that promotes VW interop gets my vote, so you've converted me to +1
on this. :-)


Morgaine.




==================================

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 3:01 AM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

> hey morgaine...
>
> i think the idea here is that it's in scope because it establishes a
> session between a client and a virtual world. so it's part of
> "interop" because (in theory) you'll have different VWRAP clients
> getting descriptors of where to rez avatars from different web based
> systems (wikipedia, facebook, etc.) and trying to get them to talk to
> different server implementations (OpenSim, Simian, Beyon, etc.)
>
> also one of the reasons we wanted to write an internet draft for this
> is that beyond the issue of getting everyone to use similar launch
> messages, we wanted to use register a launch message mime type. one of
> they ways to register a mime type is to write an RFC describing how
> it's used.
>
> -cheers
> -meadhbh
> --
> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Morgaine
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Perhaps someone could explain using a different form of words how client
> > launching forms a natural part of a VW interop protocol?
> >
> > I don't doubt at all that it's useful to launch a client application from
> a
> > web page, but I gave the document a "No" simply because I don't see how
> it's
> > in scope for us.
> >
> > Should the SMTP standard include a document on how to launch a mail
> client?
> > Should the XMPP standard include a document on how to launch a Jabber
> > client?  Should the SNMP standard include a document on how to launch
> > snmpwalk?
> >
> > I don't think it's actually harmful  to have an auxiliary document only
> > marginally related to VWs within our document set, so I could probably be
> > persuaded for the sake of unanimity.  But it does seem an oddball
> > specification within our protocol context.
> >
> > Perhaps the best defense for it is that it promotes the cause of VW
> interop
> > by creating a Web standard in the area.  In that sense it's a useful
> > document despite client launching having little direct relevance to our
> > VWRAP client-server protocol.
> >
> > Barry, I won't argue further against adding this document to our set so
> go
> > right ahead on that, given the general support.  Usefulness probably
> trumps
> > relevance and consistency in this case anyway. :-)
> >
> >
> > Morgaine.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ==============================
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 1:22 AM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> yeah. peeps should imply that i +1 any draft i author.
> >>
> >> i'm sort of abstaining in an any official vote as i'm far from being a
> >> disinterested party. also... i wanted to give people a bit of time to
> >> discuss the drafts before weighing in too heavily. my response to
> >> morgaine's response was not to discuss the technical merits of the
> >> draft, but to provide additional context as to what the draft was
> >> supposed to address.
> >>
> >> -cheers
> >> -meadhbh
> >> --
> >> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
> >> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Hurliman, John <
> [e-mail]>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Ok. I was counting Meadhbh's follow-up e-mail addressing the launch
> >> > document (
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap/current/msg00154.html)
> >> > as a +1, although I guess it wasn't explicitly stated.
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Barry Leiba [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> > Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 4:24 PM
> >> > To: Hurliman, John
> >> > Cc: [e-mail]
> >> > Subject: Re: [vwrap] Moving startup documents into the working group
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Hurliman, John
> >> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> >> What happened to the launch document draft? Aside from the LLSD type
> >> >> system, it's the only document that we have a working implementation
> >> >> and deployment for.
> >> >
> >> > What happened is that we only got two votes on it, one for adopting it
> >> > (you) and one against (Morgaine).  That's not rough consensus, so
> we're
> >> > not adopting it yet.  See Morgaine's message:
> >> >   http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap/current/msg00152.html
> >> > ...for her comments about why she said no.
> >> >
> >> > Barry
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > vwrap mailing list
> >> > [e-mail]
> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
> >> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> vwrap mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > vwrap mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
> >
> >
>