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

Vaughn Deluca <vaughn.deluca@gmail.com> Sun, 27 March 2011 21:16 UTC

Return-Path: <vaughn.deluca@gmail.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 3ED0228C157 for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 14:16:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 joK2CzxaWmsr for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 14:16:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D120828C148 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 14:16:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy19 with SMTP id 19so1132633ewy.31 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 14:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=4nJIG8vsR1v3e3UolWE9X6OSJZ6Sp+LKqwWEchtRYJk=; b=AigRP+/E48MgoGWuASgyasuaLPP2J1pKaLLVOJRXT3nyJMDmzxye3ohUZlUgpxoX54 WqYwHHK6bJt3uGb3/07+R+LU7O9o2pVLwk2Xz5ejUflHxle8fFWtpFoX9mQYm4elPrEk M9wHtDMSvDyIKV4ZpPlAVNaI4YSfP661bFzE4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=JLl3ys2dHFEw6CgqVG5I4gpD9C08v8gOYXQ1xSjBCr6jvwyiFCAQNTmuzTS34V7fWq GTCAaLiB0xpygkdaBauJfbxFiJn0+uf9zGUC+hB8uUtDP8+2l65cJwYLQOAuqgBNu2mT I32ZzDCoH1/OaJxg9xMgtzY1F3OWtCR9qUIO4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.213.107.133 with SMTP id b5mr1424583ebp.81.1301260677183; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 14:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.213.110.196 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Mar 2011 14:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=XWBTNpDwwzwpYJfuuTd_EW4Kt4DBLWb_Y5S_L@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim=tpngqs8gt=sjCeOQgtUATVRXXKe11qUaNJFw@mail.gmail.com> <BLU159-ds1192252375D420BE8C7C9EDCB90@phx.gbl> <956AEC85-F919-4C64-96BA-277B620CAB18@gmail.com> <AANLkTimLHwMb9u5Ok-44-JgHaL_EydeSHyHUQybvNpMp@mail.gmail.com> <20110326135320.GC29908@alinoe.com> <AANLkTimHKa4eFVMc9t7PK1e=WjEeJRRAEw9BjcUogzCL@mail.gmail.com> <20110327131843.GA15165@alinoe.com> <AANLkTi=XWBTNpDwwzwpYJfuuTd_EW4Kt4DBLWb_Y5S_L@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:17:57 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTinrFS6Mjy_dLg08dTwMj+xyQ6W2yTJ3sKMuvf5j@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vaughn Deluca <vaughn.deluca@gmail.com>
To: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "<vwrap@ietf.org>" <vwrap@ietf.org>, Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com>, 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: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 21:16:22 -0000

Done -- (at least the very first step).

On 3/27/11, Vaughn Deluca <vaughn.deluca@gmail.com> wrote:
> Great!, thanks a lot for the constructive input!
>
> I disagree however that this "won't lead to any document any time
> soon" It depends on the definition of "document" I might be a while
> before it produces an RFC, but I certainly would call the glossary,
> wiki pages documenting group consensus, and Definitions "documents".
>
>  I like the wiki idea, (something along those lines was suggested by
> Morgaine also). I just requested a password, and it seems i can edit
> the Wiki  :) I will put up a VWRAP glossary page later today.
>
> On 3/27/11, Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 10:43:49PM +0100, Vaughn Deluca wrote:
>>> problem we have is a lack of critical mass, and in particular input
>>> from people that have the needed technical background.  And clearly
>>> you are one of those that we need badly.
>>
>> The way I'd like to move forward is anything but producing
>> documents fast however; and that seems to be the requirement.
>>
>> If you want input from me regarding the survival of this group;
>> I'd create a wiki that everyone who requests it can edit.
>> The first and most important part of that wiki would be a glossary
>> with every word that is frequently used in the discussions.
>> That list of words should be complete rather quickly, then
>> people can add their definitions to it. If two people have
>> different definitions then those definitions should be signed;
>> Once, for a particular word, everyone has added the definitions
>> and/or remarks to the wiki (all on one page per word), we can
>> start a discussion on this list on how to reformulize and change
>> the definition of that word. Some might have to change their
>> semantics, but in the end the goal would be that every word
>> has one defintion, used and understood by everyone -- and
>> clearly documented on the wiki, with discussion history as
>> usual. If a discussion gets completely stuck on semantics,
>> then people can just sign (put their name under) the definition
>> the want and we'd just count the signatures and pick one.
>> After all, it's just semantics and has nothing to do with what
>> the protocol REALLY will do.
>>
>> Only then, we can take the next step; for which I'd also
>> use the wiki.
>>
>> Also, as I wrote in old posts before... I am still CONVINCED that
>> we can impossibly create a protocol that will address everything
>> that will be needed in the future. All we can do is create something
>> that is a good starting point and FOCUS on flexibility: create
>> a protocol that can evolve. In order to do that, we need (further
>> completely protocol neutral) protocol negotiation for every p2p
>> link that is created in the process, which allows such evolution.
>>
>> The use of XML as basis for a protocol would mean the following:
>> 1) It takes overhead, so it's not possible to use it for
>>    highbandwidth usage (ie video, or file transfers). But it could
>>    do at out-of-band control channel.
>> 2) If it's pure XML than we won't have to worry about the
>>    implementation of serializing/deserializing as much, although
>>    that only really has it's advantages when we will need VWRAP
>>    to work for implementations in multiple programming languages
>>    before it gets accepted widely. As far as I can see, we will
>>    need C# and C++, and most likely C for religious reasons.
>> 3) The ONLY benefit that XML has (on top of existing serialization
>>    libraries) is that it is extensible: You can add new parameters
>>    without confusing old code that doesn't expect it.
>>
>> Point 3, however, is just a weak attempt to be flexible. Imho,
>> it is by far not flexible enough. We'd still need a well defined
>> way for the evolving protocol negotiation, and once that is in
>> place, we won't really need this feature of XML anymore.
>>
>> Thus, provided we add "evolving protocol negotiation", we should
>> probably choose the serialization/deserialization method based on
>> grounds that I can't judge at this point in the design.
>>
>> So for the near future:
>> - Glossary and agreement on definitions of used jargon.
>> - Abstract agreement on the use of an evolving protocol.
>> - Definition of all possible p2p connection for which serialization is
>> necessary.
>> - Choice of what serialization mechanism is used where.
>> - Abstract discussion (and agreement) of the use of Abelian operators
>>   for distributed states and identity authorities (see another
>>   old post from me). If we don't do that before anything else,
>>   we'd just shoot ourself in the foot.
>> - etc
>>
>> This is no doubt the work of years, and won't lead to any document
>> any time soon.
>>
>> --
>> Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
>>
>