Re: [vwrap] Why are we standardizing the login handshake? (was RE: one question)

if you will remember from last year when we decided to have separate
intro and foundation documents, the intro was intended to put forth
the objectives of this group in details, to describe (in detail) what
makes a virtual experience "second life-like," and to provide an
overview of the the "problem domain." this document was intended to be
"informative" as it did not describe specifications that could be
implemented.

the "foundations" doc _was_ intended to be normative in that it
describe things that can be implemented.

so sure, join them if you absolutely want to. but if you look at the
charter, it DOES seem to indicate we agreed to make two docs. if you
want to smush them together into a single normative doc, great. but
you're going to have to modify the charter. not impossible to do, but
i'm sorta coming up blank on why we would want to go through the
effort.

-cheers
-meadhbh
--
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * OhMeadhbh@gmail.com

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Hurliman, John <john.hurliman@intel.com> wrote:
> I think you’re right. Most of the group has been operating under the
> assumption that intro and foundation docs need to be seriously cleaned up,
> possibly merged, and brought up to speed with the general consensus that we
> are sharing on the mailing list right now. But there’s an almost even
> division between people who want the docs rewritten from the ground up and
> people who want to iterate on the existing docs. I’m in the former camp, but
> I personally am not going to rewrite the intro and foundation docs so I
> can’t make too many demands.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: vwrap-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:vwrap-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Crista Lopes
> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 3:55 PM
> To: Morgaine
> Cc: vwrap@ietf.org
>
> Subject: Re: [vwrap] Why are we standardizing the login handshake? (was RE:
> one question)
>
>
>
> I have a feeling I am the only one taking VWRAP for what it says it is in
> the documents -- intro, authentication, etc.
>
> One of my main assessments was: this is full of irrelevant implementation
> details that should not be part of any protocol for interoperability.
>
>
> On 9/24/2010 3:27 PM, Morgaine wrote:
>
> The Intro document is beyond repair, and should be quoted only with extreme
> caution.
>
> If VWRAP "defines formats for describing objects and avatar shapes" then it
> will be obsolete on the day it is released, and utterly unable to stay in
> touch with worlds evolving along a thousand fronts.
>
> That's why we have SERVICES, so that such issues as objects and avatar
> shapes are entirely external to the core protocol, evolving independently,
> and negotiated on entry to each new world, or even potentially to each new
> region.  That's why regions have the capability to handle multiple assets
> services from multiple worlds, so that no central policy applies.  Defining
> fixed formats centrally would be an exercise in futility on an Internet
> scale.
>
> The Intro document represents OGP legacy, and should not be treated as more
> than that.  You have to remember that OGP was about expanding a centrally
> managed virtual world.  It bears very little relationship to what we're
> trying to achieve.  (And for that, I can only apologize --- OGP should have
> been thrown out much earlier.)
>
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
>
>
> ===================================
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Crista Lopes <lopes@ics.uci.edu> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> You may also want to read the intro draft.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-vwrap-intro-00
>
> This is in 4.4:
>
> "VWRAP defines formats  for describing objects and avatar shapes, but more
> importantly it
>   describes the mechanism by which those digital asset descriptions are
>   transferred between client applications, agent domains and region
>   domains."
> ...
> "Accessing and manipulating digital assets is  performed via capabilities
> which expose the state of the asset to an authorized client. "
>
> In other words, assets are fetched by the client. So if my world pushes them
> to the client, it's not VWRAP-compliant.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>