Re: [vwrap] what's wrong with starting small?

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap/current/msg00318.html
If you are talking about *this* email from John, we are on the same page.

Meadhbh Hamrick wrote:
> so we have a recommendation from at least two implementers (myself and
> john) that we focus on a small subset of an overall virtual world
> problem domain.
>
> it seems to me that diva/christina and morgaine are pushing for a more
> expansive problem domain.
>
> can i ask, what is the issue we have with starting small and then
> growing the problem domain?
>
> i think i remember an IETF "old hand" (it might have even been barry)
> say that it's a LOT easier to go back to the IAB / IESG and ask to add
> things to your charter than it is to remove them.
>
> i'm also thinking that some of the tension in this group is over the
> conflicting objectives between the "expansionist" block and the
> "dimunitivist" block. but it also seems that we're not horribly far
> off from each other in terms of wire protocol.
>
> maybe a solution could be to draft two documents... one a "long term"
> goal for virtual worlds that describes the "expansionist" objectives
> and another that is a little more short term and describes the
> "diminutivist" objective for a small subset of things needed for the
> long term goals?
>
> is the concern with this approach that any near term service (service
> establishment, event queue, teleport, assets) would need to know about
> the totality of the virtual world in order to be practical?
>
> -cheers
> -meadhbh
> --
> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * OhMeadhbh@gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>   