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

[Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>]

you're voting for option 1 then, but are you volunteering to do the work?

the current intro XML is in SVN at http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/vwrap/

you can check them out with the command:

svn co http://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/vwrap/ vwrap_documents

if there's interest, i'm happy to put on a 30 minute "how to edit,
write and publish an internet draft" presentation in world somewhere.

-cheers
-meadhbh

--
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]



On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Vaughn Deluca <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I am not convinced rechartering is actually needed. The introduction
> document certainly needs an overhaul, and we to need to reaffirm we
> are all on the same track, but I think that the existing charter might
> still work for us. I suggest we work with it, at least until it
> becomes the obvious obstacle for progress.
>
> -- Vaughn
>
>
>
> On 1/15/11, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hey Barry,
>>
>> so it seems like there's at least some interest for rechartering.
>> what's the mechanics for that? do we call for a new BoF or just hash
>> out a new charter on the mailing list?
>>
>> -cheers
>> -meadhbh
>>
>> --
>> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
>> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Vaughn Deluca <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>> Although i have only been operating in the fringe of this group, i
>>> would like to argue for #2
>>>
>>> It clear that some refocussing and consensus building is needed, but
>>> we should at least  give that a try. To me it seems definitely to
>>> early to give up. If we try #2  it will become clear if  #3 can
>>> indedeed be avoided.
>>>
>>> I see christina's point of starting at the basis, and fixing SSO
>>> first. However, I feel that from the perspective of VWRAP SSO is
>>> actually a well described sub-problem that can be left to others to
>>> solve, while we focus on the specific  of avatars and assets.
>>>
>>> In  terms of actual commitment, i think the wiki idea is great, and i
>>> will try to free some time to contribute there in the near future.
>>>
>>> --Vaughn
>>>
>>> On 1/15/11, Cristina Videira Lopes <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> I'm leaning towards #2 and #3 simultaneously :)
>>>> Let me explain.
>>>>
>>>> The goal of achieving virtual world interoperability always felt like a
>>>> niche goal to me, but one that, given the nature of these applications,
>>>> touched on a couple of more foundational issues: single sign ons and Web
>>>> services security -- in short, federations that cross enterprise
>>>> boundaries.
>>>>
>>>> There is a variety of implementations for SSOs out there, more recently
>>>> the one in the Hypergrid, and a variety of ways of securing Web
>>>> services. But no standards that I know of -- apart from the SOAP stuff.
>>>> Perhaps this group should band with others who may be interested in
>>>> standardizing these things -- SSO seems like it's ripe for that. In
>>>> other words, let's join with others on common foundational issues,
>>>> rather than separating from them along the lines of application domains
>>>> (VWs vs everything else).
>>>>
>>>> In that sense I'd argue for #3, because doing an IETF SSO working group
>>>> properly would require substantial change and outreach. There's a long
>>>> history in SSOs. The good news is that from what I read in [1], there is
>>>> now some interest in the IETF on this.
>>>>
>>>> However, some issues are application-domain-specific -- e.g. avatars,
>>>> assets;  in the Web model, these are MIME type issues. They need
>>>> standardization too -- or at least generalized agreement on the data
>>>> that gets passed around.
>>>>
>>>> In that sense I'd argue for #2. There are MIME type standards that this
>>>> group can define specifically for virtual worlds. That's one part of
>>>> interoperability that only ppl in the VW field can tackle.
>>>>
>>>> Crista / Diva
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://isoc.org/wp/ietfjournal/?p=1715
>>>>
>>>> On 1/14/2011 9:13 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>>>> Good day, all.
>>>>> The chairs and area directors have been talking about the status and
>>>>> future of the VWRAP working group.  Owing to changes in focus and
>>>>> commitment by both companies and individuals, things have been
>>>>> languishing, and it's not clear to us that we have what we need to get
>>>>> the chartered work done.  The introduction document looked close to
>>>>> ready, until some controversy on its content and direction brewed, and
>>>>> the result of that discussion was inconclusive.  The normative drafts
>>>>> that have seen some implementation (type system, launch message, etc.)
>>>>> also appear nearly technically complete, but some issues have been
>>>>> identified and not resolved by subsequent discussion, consensus, and
>>>>> editing.
>>>>>
>>>>> At this point, the mailing list has been too quiet for too long, all
>>>>> the draft documents have expired, and we need to make a decision about
>>>>> what to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> The chairs and ADs see three possibilities:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Find new document editors, pick up the chartered work with the
>>>>> existing document base, and get moving again.  Get the introduction
>>>>> document finished by the end of February, and make progress on the
>>>>> others.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Come to consensus on significant changes to the direction of the
>>>>> VWRAP specs, find new document editors, revamp the introduction
>>>>> document, and get that finished, or substantially so, by the end of
>>>>> February.  Have some clear consensus, clear direction, and enthusiasm
>>>>> to continue.  Consider rechartering, if the direction has changed
>>>>> enough to require that.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Accept that we no longer have enough core participation, consensus,
>>>>> and enthusiasm to make progress, and close the working group.  Future
>>>>> work in the virtual world area could charter a new working group
>>>>> later.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that options 1 and 2 both require that we demonstrate sufficient
>>>>> energy and participation to really get work done and to demonstrate
>>>>> consensus.  That means that we need people to commit to
>>>>> writing/editing documents, actively discussing the technical issues
>>>>> with the goal of reaching consensus on the content of the documents,
>>>>> and, importantly, reviewing documents and showing that we have
>>>>> consensus.  Three or four participants isn't enough, and conflicting
>>>>> ideas that can't be resolved into a consensus-based position won't
>>>>> work.
>>>>>
>>>>> What say you, VWRAP participants?  Can we pick up the work and make
>>>>> progress?  Shall we close the working group, and perhaps consider
>>>>> something in future?  Do you favour options 1, 2, or 3?  Or do you see
>>>>> an alternative option you'd like to bring up?
>>>>>
>>>>> Barry and Joshua, VWRAP chairs
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>