IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [vwrap] one question

Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com> Fri, 24 September 2010 21:05 UTC

Return-Path: <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78E423A691F for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.776
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.776 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r2FZ7q62aLbx for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 098343A67D4 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:05:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk2 with SMTP id 2so2812149qyk.10 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=2znk3tJsYixTm4KSLLf0bKbO70kSiG22EJ6RyarLeis=; b=MmvOIHSw3hpiaNyRka4m4tHJBUXMEEMdUcpIuR99g1Vk54xWBwzUoGMCLa66khtwuS wYVr2l8SwjDF05yI4oaAwrE+O6skEwB1mDSz8Q3qz2VU8cZ3pEktKHi+NffMSu4nD6Zj S64v7C2dqBr6kZ3tKw3f5DSIzbyoyvMWZ0cfY=
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 :cc:content-type; b=isGeJNrGM9yBA590DVvJsx2srdVFmBuMJpoMajcGLRfSoH3JLxdyfZw1z+FahEcVkM o1lp8uNYIcMwJeNcg0IZpLeA2/tz1eeLOMONVxnD0KYTSD3hJTIbfTIRM1YhFLLgTZw+ U2qO/StRoBKaOoXxxgEnMTzetCyoAU3r5sx5g=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.73.209 with SMTP id r17mr2926498qaj.3.1285362338237; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:05:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.232.69 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Sep 2010 14:05:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4C9D0C8E.5040109@ics.uci.edu>
References: <4C9AB1BB.2010008@ics.uci.edu> <AANLkTi=fz6LhpRaTJr7Bu4KsXS93-B0B7SzjH4PwDGuc@mail.gmail.com> <4C9B7041.50908@ics.uci.edu> <AANLkTim-BvM-z90DjRcXD1r1bvZ1doSxzq6-Ou4jg-V7@mail.gmail.com> <B404AC53EB6E4A90A58B2C606CF66045@TWEEDY64> <AANLkTim98XGBrUQOVs0a1iyJD5AOq9nBPhcbZYgU6tro@mail.gmail.com> <4C9BAFF4.5010702@ics.uci.edu> <AANLkTinaghw0KwwvCQn8sEE5787C5zvdvt0Mos_qvByA@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimTV2g__Bmr9vexgKy5OjDubrjqFj-7Foe6nSGW@mail.gmail.com> <4C9CBFF5.2000508@ics.uci.edu> <OF86D28401.33705A10-ON852577A8.006059AE-852577A8.00654907@us.ibm.com> <4C9CF6F2.4040905@ics.uci.edu> <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933D012AD7DF4E@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com> <4C9D03A1.1070603@ics.uci.edu> <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933D012AD7DFB0@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com> <4C9D0C8E.5040109@ics.uci.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 22:05:36 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=3U4sk7Hn4hUu0aXoiBT5qm1eZ=TZUiwJ1Jqek@mail.gmail.com>
From: Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
To: Crista Lopes <lopes@ics.uci.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015175cba8a940d53049107bd1e
Cc: vwrap@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [vwrap] one question
X-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 21:05:07 -0000

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Crista Lopes <lopes@ics.uci.edu> wrote:


>  The disconnect is on things that are written on the drafts.



The drafts are decidedly odd, and in large part, quite unrelated to our
goals.  Yes, we accept that, and we have not tried to defend their rather
obvious failings.  They're a legacy of days past, and under some
interpretations are even "anti-interop".  But that is not the goal of the
working group.  They can be fixed, and they WILL be fixed if we can muster
sufficient cooperative spirit.

But talking about cooperative spirit, it is also important that we avoid
conjuring up differences where none exist.  We also need to partition the
problem space into its component parts, and define standard protocols so
that servers and clients can be developed separately --- this is essential
to allow them to improve and evolve independently.  Virtual worlds are far
more complex than web pages, and can't be handled in the same ad hoc fashion
as web pages if we expect any useful amount of interop to occur.


Morgaine.



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

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Crista Lopes <lopes@ics.uci.edu> wrote:

> On 9/24/2010 1:32 PM, Hurliman, John wrote:
>
>> For the case of your client talking to your virtual world, you don't have
>> to follow any standards at all. That is completely outside the scope of
>> VWRAP and no one is going to say "your client is using AJAX to fetch assets
>> instead of the VWRAP standard, you're not VWRAP compliant!". But if you want
>> your virtual world servers to interoperate with other clients that are
>> written by other people (and may not be written in Javascript at all) you
>> need to expose VWRAP-compliant endpoints on your servers that follow very
>> precise specs. Does that clear up the possible disconnect we're having?
>>
>>
> I think the disconnect is not on this conversation, as I completely agree
> with you. The disconnect is on things that are written on the drafts.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email