Re: [vwrap] Status and future of the VWRAP working group

Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> Sat, 26 March 2011 13:39 UTC

Return-Path: <carlo@alinoe.com>
X-Original-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12B0628C120 for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 06:39:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MtYiNKMKoUEn for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 06:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fep20.mx.upcmail.net (fep20.mx.upcmail.net [62.179.121.40]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8BC628C0E4 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 06:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from edge01.upcmail.net ([192.168.13.236]) by viefep20-int.chello.at (InterMail vM.8.01.02.02 201-2260-120-106-20100312) with ESMTP id <20110326134050.CIEY23900.viefep20-int.chello.at@edge01.upcmail.net>; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 14:40:50 +0100
Received: from mail9.alinoe.com ([77.250.43.12]) by edge01.upcmail.net with edge id Ppgp1g00Q0FlQed01pgqkS; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 14:40:50 +0100
X-SourceIP: 77.250.43.12
Received: from carlo by mail9.alinoe.com with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <carlo@alinoe.com>) id 1Q3TjU-0007yQ-Ut; Sat, 26 Mar 2011 14:40:48 +0100
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 14:40:48 +0100
From: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
To: Izzy Alanis <izzyalanis@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110326134048.GB29908@alinoe.com>
References: <AANLkTik5SNwv9jEf1QBwOoji0GTYNRvPdiT=P2pDfJ44@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinLZNps6h=x16gCgexaJFXdAYPgBdaj4UGs73S0@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimhWbyQMKWTbtu-8ci1Q39igXSEYHFkb_Vyqx+N@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimQavrUESFHZkTA8hF1pOiU0v4szX-Q6ejEjef9@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=9rE5fEnT3GeAk6_+8u_USpO3KmaFqjVcL5LS1@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimSJa8b2_+=TvSE9R3+aPatgLhF0rM_P8Bh0SgL@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimJYsstf1_urmjpTBAx41O+-0=DoJk-sj4_JHRv@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTik0zsd7Q=2LHO5gA_5FnFFiWjShQ=fCR4BuZrKq@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTik=RxEOXbiq62bQpBSaejMoOiK6Fq=FPyU-0eKE@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTim6xM_=aXVkEpYTc7-fJBx7eRW2gW-6nO0iL6gz@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim6xM_=aXVkEpYTc7-fJBx7eRW2gW-6nO0iL6gz@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=zlRBWuFCZaNL9+WHNm1pWLowY5Lx061w2zJBJiDkNAU= c=1 sm=0 a=XYJHFtupD_QA:10 a=I88v0MqpzI0A:10 a=lF6S9qf5Q1oA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=BjFOTwK7AAAA:8 a=k_xgfghwNV3msoiHwaoA:9 a=gWOXB55ZkvO2F2s0pYkbiyu1A6UA:4 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=bW3kdApBr58A:10 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117
Cc: vwrap@ietf.org, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Status and future of the VWRAP working group
X-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 13:39:17 -0000

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 04:34:39PM -0400, Izzy Alanis wrote:
> document?", I start to think about the abstract type system, the very
> first bullet point in the charter, and I think about the crap that is
> LLSD (no offense to the folks at Linden Labs) and then I think about

Same here.

If I'd be in charge of this project, we'd start from SCRATCH.
We'd start by making a list of things we want and need, not
start from some old heritage and try to force and mold it
at all costs into VWRAP.

There are a few very essential things wrong with the core
of the current design. It's also not flexible enough.
The current draft is exclusively aimed at defending the
market position of a dieing company and has nothing to do
with what would be technically the best protocol.

-- 
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>