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

[Mark Bannon <[e-mail]>]

Hey everyone.
Up until recently I have been more of an observer in the group due to other
committee work related to 3D development.  Now being transferred onto this
end of things so should be a lot more active in this group in the future.

With regards to our options, I would personally suggest for number two.
 Certainly some refocus is required!  Number three would be a last option
situation. At least option two would give us a chance to gather our thoughts
again and then if that didn't work, option three would be there further down
the road.  Don't think we are at the point of giving up yet.

Wiki idea sounds great.  Actually I have a bit of suggestion or question to
ask.  One of the organisations I do volunteer work for (IDCAS) has created
an excellent project management system which has a wiki built into it.  Its
just one of the things incorporated into the system but has a lot of other
helpful tools.  IDCAS currently provides a lot of free services to a number
of technology groups and even help manage a quite active registered opensim
grid association as a side project in the field of 3D internet development (
http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Grid_Associations). Mostly their work relates
to opensim but they work on other platforms too.  A lot of the discussion in
their grid association for the last 6 months has been related to
standardization of avatars, meshing and other properties.  So from what I
can tell IDCAS itself could be open to perhaps helping a group like ours out
if we asked them.  Would anyone like me to enquire about this, since they
are already heavily involved in the area of vwap and have a lot of members
in ICANN groups it may be good to see what support they could provide us.
I was using an internal volunteer/demo version of this developers system for
a different purpose last week and it has support ticketing systems,
project/task allocation, code/version management etc in addition to the wiki
so could be very useful.  Anyway basic question is would you like me to ask
if they could give us all access?  Word of warning though,
they typically dont grant access to individuals, they mostly only give it to
official non-profit based organisations and groups.  I think though that if
we asked as a "working group of IETF" there should not be a problem, after
all they granted access to a various ICANN groups in the past, precidence
thus has been set so think we would have a good chance of getting a lot of
help from them.  Who knows what else they might supply, know they are in
process of developing a framework/bridge for connecting opensim and websites
and are in partnership with the development team of ICMS (integrated client
messaging service) which is IANA port recognised (I know that because it was
one of the committees I got involved in a while ago so am aware of the
partnership that way), perhaps it could be a clever move on our part of ask
for help in "general" terms off them?

Returning to our group options though, so that we can go further from here.
I would certainly like to see us go for option two as its always difficult
with any project at the start, that can be equated to initial documentation
in the same way.  Once an initial version exists then people can work on it
and thus the framework develops further.

Mark



On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Vaughn Deluca <[e-mail]>wrote:

> Although i have only been operating in the fringe of this group, i
> would like to argue for #2
>
> It clear that some refocussing and consensus building is needed, but
> we should at least  give that a try. To me it seems definitely to
> early to give up. If we try #2  it will become clear if  #3 can
> indedeed be avoided.
>
> I see christina's point of starting at the basis, and fixing SSO
> first. However, I feel that from the perspective of VWRAP SSO is
> actually a well described sub-problem that can be left to others to
> solve, while we focus on the specific  of avatars and assets.
>
> In  terms of actual commitment, i think the wiki idea is great, and i
> will try to free some time to contribute there in the near future.
>
> --Vaughn
>
> On 1/15/11, Cristina Videira Lopes <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > I'm leaning towards #2 and #3 simultaneously :)
> > Let me explain.
> >
> > The goal of achieving virtual world interoperability always felt like a
> > niche goal to me, but one that, given the nature of these applications,
> > touched on a couple of more foundational issues: single sign ons and Web
> > services security -- in short, federations that cross enterprise
> boundaries.
> >
> > There is a variety of implementations for SSOs out there, more recently
> > the one in the Hypergrid, and a variety of ways of securing Web
> > services. But no standards that I know of -- apart from the SOAP stuff.
> > Perhaps this group should band with others who may be interested in
> > standardizing these things -- SSO seems like it's ripe for that. In
> > other words, let's join with others on common foundational issues,
> > rather than separating from them along the lines of application domains
> > (VWs vs everything else).
> >
> > In that sense I'd argue for #3, because doing an IETF SSO working group
> > properly would require substantial change and outreach. There's a long
> > history in SSOs. The good news is that from what I read in [1], there is
> > now some interest in the IETF on this.
> >
> > However, some issues are application-domain-specific -- e.g. avatars,
> > assets;  in the Web model, these are MIME type issues. They need
> > standardization too -- or at least generalized agreement on the data
> > that gets passed around.
> >
> > In that sense I'd argue for #2. There are MIME type standards that this
> > group can define specifically for virtual worlds. That's one part of
> > interoperability that only ppl in the VW field can tackle.
> >
> > Crista / Diva
> >
> > [1] http://isoc.org/wp/ietfjournal/?p=1715
> >
> > On 1/14/2011 9:13 AM, Barry Leiba wrote:
> >> Good day, all.
> >> The chairs and area directors have been talking about the status and
> >> future of the VWRAP working group.  Owing to changes in focus and
> >> commitment by both companies and individuals, things have been
> >> languishing, and it's not clear to us that we have what we need to get
> >> the chartered work done.  The introduction document looked close to
> >> ready, until some controversy on its content and direction brewed, and
> >> the result of that discussion was inconclusive.  The normative drafts
> >> that have seen some implementation (type system, launch message, etc.)
> >> also appear nearly technically complete, but some issues have been
> >> identified and not resolved by subsequent discussion, consensus, and
> >> editing.
> >>
> >> At this point, the mailing list has been too quiet for too long, all
> >> the draft documents have expired, and we need to make a decision about
> >> what to do.
> >>
> >> The chairs and ADs see three possibilities:
> >>
> >> 1. Find new document editors, pick up the chartered work with the
> >> existing document base, and get moving again.  Get the introduction
> >> document finished by the end of February, and make progress on the
> >> others.
> >>
> >> 2. Come to consensus on significant changes to the direction of the
> >> VWRAP specs, find new document editors, revamp the introduction
> >> document, and get that finished, or substantially so, by the end of
> >> February.  Have some clear consensus, clear direction, and enthusiasm
> >> to continue.  Consider rechartering, if the direction has changed
> >> enough to require that.
> >>
> >> 3. Accept that we no longer have enough core participation, consensus,
> >> and enthusiasm to make progress, and close the working group.  Future
> >> work in the virtual world area could charter a new working group
> >> later.
> >>
> >> Note that options 1 and 2 both require that we demonstrate sufficient
> >> energy and participation to really get work done and to demonstrate
> >> consensus.  That means that we need people to commit to
> >> writing/editing documents, actively discussing the technical issues
> >> with the goal of reaching consensus on the content of the documents,
> >> and, importantly, reviewing documents and showing that we have
> >> consensus.  Three or four participants isn't enough, and conflicting
> >> ideas that can't be resolved into a consensus-based position won't
> >> work.
> >>
> >> What say you, VWRAP participants?  Can we pick up the work and make
> >> progress?  Shall we close the working group, and perhaps consider
> >> something in future?  Do you favour options 1, 2, or 3?  Or do you see
> >> an alternative option you'd like to bring up?
> >>
> >> Barry and Joshua, VWRAP chairs
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>