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

[Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>]

in other words, what does "interoperation between virtual worlds" mean?

the "service level interoperability" was sufficiently defined such
that i could (and did) go out and write code to demonstrably implement
the specification. does the term "interoperation between virtual
worlds" mean:

a. interoperability between any two existing virtual world or MMO
systems? (i.e. - between second life and world of warcraft?)

b. interoperability between second life, second life / enterprise or
OpenSIm instances?

or

c. interoperability between two OpenSim instances?

if a or b, do we have any interest from any of the implementers of
those systems to adhere to an IETF standard?

-cheers
-meadhbh

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



On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Morgaine
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> The group's expectation of direction was already manifest at the time of
> Crista's intervention a few months ago, at which time it was unanimous that
> everybody except one person was seeking interoperation between virtual
> worlds as a primary requirement and as a key motivation for the group's
> work.
>
> The dissenting opinion was clearly, if unofficially, outvoted by <count of
> group members> to 1.  If that direction is STILL not accepted by everyone in
> the WG, I shall ask Barry to formally call a count of votes and establish
> the rough consensus officially.  Without this we will be perpetually
> disrupted by a non-representative minority pulling in the opposite direction
> to the rest of the group.
>
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
>
> ========================
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Um. Morgaine. You don't get to define the wg's expectation or direction.
>> As a member of this wg (and someone who's actually written code related to
>> it's problem domain) I would like to be included in the development of this
>> group's consensus.
>>
>> On Mar 28, 2011 8:29 AM, "Morgaine" <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Barry, is there IETF precedent for a WG that has undergone this particular
>> train of events, namely a major disconnect between its originators'
>> intentions and the WG's expectations of direction?
>>
>> If so, our situation may be slightly easier to handle, since the
>> originators have withdrawn from pressing their case and there appears to be
>> almost no actual dispute remaining in the group.  Procedurally though, I
>> really don't know where we stand from the IETF's perspective.  We seem to
>> have a common goal now, but if the IETF demands paperwork, we're not there
>> yet because the designs and plans have not been worked out.  I'm hoping for
>> flexibility, but acknowledge that flexibility has a limit.
>>
>> That said, reading the IETF Mission Statement leaves no doubt that VW
>> interoperability is right in the middle of the road for the IETF.  Can the
>> group be left to work out what needs to be worked out?
>>
>>
>> Morgaine.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =================================
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi, Carlo, Vaugh...
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> vwrap mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>