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

Yes, I am interested in service deployers being able to deploy individual services.
Yes, I support the use case of people being able to deploy individual services.
Yes, I wish to define those services.
And finally,
Yes, I wish to define a suite of services that meets some definition of the broader virtual world interoperability goal.

Does that clear up any contradictions?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meadhbh Hamrick [mailto:ohmeadhbh@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 3:18 PM
> To: Hurliman, John
> Cc: vwrap@ietf.org
> Subject: 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
> >