Re: [vwrap] The <embed> tag... is the group still interested in LLSD or DSD?

Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com> Sun, 08 May 2011 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DB3CE0691 for <vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 May 2011 10:47:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.913
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.913 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rDv1sNe78vHF for <vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 May 2011 10:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D43CE068B for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 May 2011 10:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so3392894qwc.31 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Sun, 08 May 2011 10:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=ENXQvc8qDUzI8P5voC1XkpI33eiVKyti4ZCYpdKJxAA=; b=F9RD+P9sOtd0qj2sMOayolDwtMEUukvEktRRwZ8Jpn+n4tCpQlqVXQFEO+b7VWiW3E ZadZt8C+v7JsEFmVRLQMkTGhWOKDexy4+U6+z1q7twz8cTp7+CQtJ173lgHyCH2CU2in VnNmk6LtZNneOLGTzTXFSHuQRbWYFGduVMdDY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=lAie6myu8cA9L28vp30IWe+3NcfieVVAT6D7TOlRTEWHTG/6p3KTnmxiwmZt4i5/+W ofgLRhfUAGUHIyFPTLGE911Mbv7OeUngolpVPZDtRt1mMK1Ru9j3vILNbqDXWyQZOKXt OUdTP4Gy5spVfPVQJznSJ7584MKNHlTQYb/uA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.27.78 with SMTP id h14mr4041659qcc.253.1304876526790; Sun, 08 May 2011 10:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.66.212 with HTTP; Sun, 8 May 2011 10:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTim+CUYNNdxALF2W1+E5Vmj20Ar7tw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=g9T5q5bVgytpxRxuE=Oc9iG2F9w@mail.gmail.com> <4DC1956A.5020204@gmail.com> <BANLkTik8rnsKP4xq+Gj5G4dsG=UOVnkNSQ@mail.gmail.com> <4DC1A8C9.9090406@gmail.com> <BANLkTikkOS34CC+ML0JNJgHDoRqbs9rY9w@mail.gmail.com> <4DC1D165.7010705@gmail.com> <4DC1D5FC.6040608@gmail.com> <BANLkTik81Eht3NTdLXXmgqOWvjc2s_KBnw@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=-heHa35w43te0ba8NufkT+MP+CQ@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTin6ExR7+xpodbtoTAS_4WyhUXL92Q@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTikjKib79_rLR_s2X=X-ss-+V_yw+w@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTim4aY7oNALbOfZ2V-htivVmQJZDiA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=7MDUAfjJb697uRwrrxB-4v5fQ3A@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=AeC1oLNGFwUWs0Yp_JNEKcaSsag@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinNtJiq4JH5qvf36kiKmFtAQArvAA@mail.gmail.com> <4DC60610.3040606@gmail.com> <BANLkTinwSxG3=3eSnKjvFSB1k7fYOEKwPg@mail.gmail.com> <4DC61E3C.5080307@gmail.com> <BANLkTin=tyc+rUy=RvqCJ9r34j90v1nSGg@mail.gmail.com> <4DC6840B.9050203@gmail.com> <BANLkTinE87mmqLZyqgzWsEfi9cOk2br2nQ@mail.gmail.com> <4DC6BB19.1050305@gmail.com> <BANLkTim+CUYNNdxALF2W1+E5Vmj20Ar7tw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 18:42:06 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=QoFMXYd5AKp0EF9tpjFJYgcNgOg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
To: vwrap@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636426b6bdaeb7f04a2c73dc4
Subject: Re: [vwrap] The <embed> tag... is the group still interested in LLSD or DSD?
X-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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, 08 May 2011 17:47:51 -0000

I should have mentioned Carlo's contribution on this topic too, namely to
gain extensibility through version negotiation at protocol initiation time.
This allows us to avoid having to add extensible predefined types to the ADT
system, a clear win.

This doesn't mean that we should feel free to make VWRAP's ADT system v1.0
totally poor, but it does mean that if we fail to make it meet common
requirements then our incompetence can be overcome by developers without
coming back to the IETF.


Morgaine.



===================

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>wrote:

> On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
>> Start with the solution (and the charter).
>>
>>
> Sorry, but no.  You start with the requirements, or you'll get the wrong
> solution.  Starting with the solution was what we did with OGP, and look
> where it landed us.  After 2 years of work, we had to throw most of it away
> because it didn't meet the central goal of providing interop between
> worlds.  Let's not make that mistake again.
>
> The same applies to our ADT system.  It has to meet important engineering
> requirements, and the big ones are flexibility, extensibility, and
> scalability, plus the efficiency that everybody needs.  The initial ADT
> system of our first draft fails on all three relevant counts (scalability is
> affected only through efficiency), which is why we're addressing those
> defects now.
>
>
>>
>>  We need "best effort" first brought to the table. If you have something
>> you can bring to this list and kill() if that something goes completely
>> wrong, perfect enough. If you try to build something here first, then you
>> don't have something OF YOUR OWN to kill.
>>
>
>
> No idea what most of that means, but the "best effort brought to the table"
> I did understand, and we're working that out currently to our best efforts.
> In particular, note the exchange of posts about this with Vaughn, including
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap/current/msg00853.html ,
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap/current/msg00855.html  and
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap/current/msg00858.html .  The
> discussion has been a good one, aided also by contributions from Joshua,
> Meadhbh, Dahlia and Boroondas.  It has been a technical discussion, and it
> has been leading us forward.  You clearly don't want to contribute
> technically on this topic, which is your choice, but don't accuse the rest
> of us of bringing nothing to the table.  We're working on it, productively,
> and the discussion has been entirely technical with the other participants.
>
>
>>
>> > "...please don't block us from working on it."
>>
>> Please, don't try to turn this around back in the opposite direction again
>> and blame biosystematicals on me. If you want to go in the opposite
>> direction, the bring what you already have to the table.
>
>
>
> I've got no time for this.  Stick to technical topics please.
>
>>
>>
>> > "You're confusing two different "LLSD"."
>>
>> We have not confused multiple licenses. Others on this list (and other
>> WGs) have demonstrated awareness of this and don't cross-judge this
>> documentation based on theirs or others implementation.
>>
>> Blackbox the details on another list. Clarify the protocol on this list.
>> Simple. Also note, some of us are doctors and some of us are scientists.
>> There are reasons we don't share the pen, as this principle alone kills the
>> obvious argument. Please consider *at least this much* about the pen with
>> everything you write here. If you want to write the draft, then be the
>> doctor! Don't kill() others scientists.
>
>
>
> Licenses have nothing to do with this.  And stick to technical topics
> please.
>
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
>
>
> ======================
>
>
> On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>; wrote:
>
>> Start with the solution (and the charter).
>>
>>
>> On 05/08/2011 05:38 AM, Morgaine wrote:
>>
>>> "I don't have exact text, we're working out the details first on the
>>> list, and once we have those worked out, and we see a consensus forming,
>>> then we can start writing an updated document ready for the next draft."
>>>
>>
>> We need "best effort" first brought to the table. If you have something
>> you can bring to this list and kill() if that something goes completely
>> wrong, perfect enough. If you try to build something here first, then you
>> don't have something OF YOUR OWN to kill.
>>
>> > "...please don't block us from working on it."
>>
>> Please, don't try to turn this around back in the opposite direction again
>> and blame biosystematicals on me. If you want to go in the opposite
>> direction, the bring what you already have to the table.
>>
>>
>> > "You're confusing two different "LLSD"."
>>
>> We have not confused multiple licenses. Others on this list (and other
>> WGs) have demonstrated awareness of this and don't cross-judge this
>> documentation based on theirs or others implementation.
>>
>> Blackbox the details on another list. Clarify the protocol on this list.
>> Simple. Also note, some of us are doctors and some of us are scientists.
>> There are reasons we don't share the pen, as this principle alone kills the
>> obvious argument. Please consider *at least this much* about the pen with
>> everything you write here. If you want to write the draft, then be the
>> doctor! Don't kill() others scientists.
>>
>> Dear Happy Mothers Day, thanks for the most awesome academy!
>>
>>
>> --
>> --- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
>> Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> vwrap mailing list
>> vwrap@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>
>
>