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

[Izzy Alanis <[e-mail]>]

+1 to: put aside the existing stuff

For the purposes of the Intro doc, I think it would be possible to
table the decision between LLSD/LLIDL and something else (protobuf)
for the abstract type system / interface descriptions *if* the doc was
couched in terms of a VWRAP-IDL that we then specify/decide on in the
following IDL/type system doc.

One thing we should make a decision on, and that I think is fuzzy in
the draft-hamrick-vwrap-intro-01 doc, is whether the serializations
are negotiated between services, or whether VWRAP mandates LLSD as the
only approved serialization.

Sections 2.3.1:
 "Web-based applications may choose to use JSON or XML.
Server-to-server interactions may use the VWRAP specific binary
serialization scheme..."

Seems to conflict with (2.3.3):
  " VWRAP uses the LLSD abstract type system and the LLIDL interface
       description language to describe the structure and type semantics
       of elements in messages sent between systems.  Because LLSD makes
       extensive use of variable width, clearly delineated data fields,
       services which consume protocol messages may identify and extract
       only those message elements they know how to handle."

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that protobuff supports
the same variable width, extensibility, default values, yada yada
yada.









we could couch that in terms of only the IDL, and leave serialization
of messages up to content negotiation between services involved.

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Patnad Babii <[e-mail]> wrote:
> What we should focus on, is this I believe, are we going to keep LLSD (is it
> good enought). Is it really needed or shall we start from scratch, with the
> aim of using some new viewer / browser.
>
> Opensim (open source virtual platform with alot of grids already) is using
> LLSD, especially because the viewer LL made is using LLSD.
>
> To be honest I keep saying since the beginning of these working groups (the
> various ones, ogpx, vwrap, mmox..) we should put aside the existing stuff,
> work more with Opensim, since they are the key to this new journey that is
> open virtual worlds, its good they have HyperGrid already which does some
> amazing stuff!
>
> What we need is a consensus, something we all agree on and go forward with
> the docs.
>
> -----Message d'origine----- From: Barry Leiba
> Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2011 10:40 AM
> To: Carlo Wood
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [vwrap] Status and future of the VWRAP working group
>
> Hi, Carlo, Vaughn, Izzy, Dzonatas, and everyone else.
> I'm glad to see some discussion going.  Izzy is right when he says this:
>>
>> Of course this all may not matter unless somebody actually addresses
>> the underlying issue: That the group needs to start producing documents.
>
> Indeed.  We, the chairs, need to see real progress on the documents...
> particularly the introduction document.
>
> This discussion is a start, and, as I say, I'm pleased to see it, but
> it has to turn into real document editing very soon.
>
> I want to say one other thing:
>
>> Oops, no I said 'we'... but count me out. I still see the same people
>> around here and it's still going to fail just as bad as last time (or,
>> as I expected the first time around... some "standard" is going to
>> be produced that sucks; and that is either going to be ignored, or
>> adopted by a few large "players" who then all get major head aches
>> and problems that they can't fix; and in the end it will be the users
>> who suffer most from having a bad protocol of course :/.
>
> Carlo, Meadhbh is still around, thought she (note gender) has given up
> the editorship of the documents.  Your input is welcome -- encouraged
> -- though, of course, if you choose not to participate for whatever
> reason, that's your choice.  I think choosing not to participate
> because some particular person is also participating is a poor choice,
> but it's your choice to make.  I would like to see you reconsider
> that, if you're willing to do the work.
>
> What I do *not* want to see, and what we won't tolerate, are personal
> attacks on any participant here.  Do not engage in name-calling, do
> not question people's integrity, do not malign the companies they work
> for, and do not accuse people of malfeasance because they disagree
> with you.  If you present your ideas and others agree with what you
> say, those ideas will make it forward.  That's how we aim to work,
> here, and if this working group can continue and make progress, that's
> indeed how we'll work.
>
> So... will we make some progress on the intro document?  Can we get
> some real discussion on it, and a draft that shows some level of
> consensus within the nest few weeks?
>
> Barry, as chair
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>