Re: [vwrap] Statements of Consensus. Flexibity First.

Carlo Wood <> Tue, 05 April 2011 15:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36C993A680D for <>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 08:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.524
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eXTiPuF1mlXs for <>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 08:13:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32B8A3A67F5 for <>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 08:13:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by (InterMail vM. 201-2260-120-106-20100312) with ESMTP id <> for <>; Tue, 5 Apr 2011 17:15:01 +0200
Received: from ([]) by with edge id TrF01g01p0FlQed01rF1SQ; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 17:15:01 +0200
Received: from carlo by with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <>) id 1Q77y8-0001cy-9D for; Tue, 05 Apr 2011 17:15:00 +0200
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 17:15:00 +0200
From: Carlo Wood <>
Message-ID: <20110405171500.3831ab7a@hikaru.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <20110401161332.37ca0f9e@hikaru.localdomain> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.8 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=Nww7yNiXF4C1XGF+VcigPkOcTpD8wJaI1KQuZlH5eEk= c=1 sm=0 a=SNAFxGGoWQUA:10 a=lF6S9qf5Q1oA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=mK_AVkanAAAA:8 a=oUpCIMHNDJ7P_6j1WIYA:9 a=ZTYJDQgxmekzzpN68T4A:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=9xyTavCNlvEA:10 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Statements of Consensus. Flexibity First.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:13:21 -0000

Well said. A lot less specific and "mathematical" but
I agree that the phrase "design for tomorrow" captures
a great deal of the idea behind it.

As I said a few times before now... We can impossibly
know what the future will bring, or require. In fact,
we will very likely be unable to design the protocol
the Right Way for today either, on our first attempt.

We should realize this and think ahead: flexibility is
the only way to deal with that in the future. [For the
not so "great men": the picture I have in my head with
this is several large virtual worlds that are using VWRAP,
with hundred of thousands of users. Then we discover
that something is inefficient or just can't be gotten
right. There is a solution but it would require to
change the definition of VWRAP. This IS going
to happen. Don't ignore it until it's too late (until
that day where already thousands are using the protocol)]

On Tue, 5 Apr 2011 05:30:28 +0100
Morgaine <> wrote:
> I support Carlo's suggestion very strongly.  These are such early
> days in the evolution of virtual worlds that designing for today
> seems just plain silly to me, and I would like to see "design for
> tomorrow" enshrined by agreement.
> Morgaine.