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

[Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>]

right. you don't get consensus by saying "this is what we put in the
charter," but the charter defines what the group is supposed to be
working on.

if this group wants to work on something different from what's in the
charter, that's great.

but

we're going to have to change the charter.

and i hear no one talking about that.

also, no one has put forth a competing intro doc. if you want this
group to be about something else, that's great, but you SHOULD state
what this group is about rather than grumbling that "the intro is
unsalvagable."

maybe you could list individual bits about the intro that you don't like?

that way, people could discuss the bits of the intro and when you get
an intro, it will be something that you do like.

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



On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Hurliman, John <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I remember the discussions and I agree with your assessment. Decisions were made, things were written into the intro/foundation drafts and charter, and we've reached a point where several participants feel the current drafts do not reflect the current consensus of the group. If this is the case, what is written in the charter is ultimately irrelevant aside from possibly needing to be changed. You don't gain consensus by saying "this is what our charter says so that's what we're committed to doing" if no one is actually committed to doing it. This is the kind of thing that should really be put to a vote.
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Meadhbh Hamrick [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 4:13 PM
>> To: Hurliman, John
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> Subject: 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/ * [e-mail]
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Hurliman, John <[e-mail]>
>> 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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>> Behalf
>> > Of Crista Lopes
>> > Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 3:55 PM
>> > To: Morgaine
>> > Cc: [e-mail]
>> >
>> > 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 <[e-mail]> 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
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > vwrap mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>> >
>> >
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>