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

Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com> Fri, 21 January 2011 04:07 UTC

Return-Path: <ohmeadhbh@gmail.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 42CC83A684C for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:07:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 ujCg3-Tka4zC for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:07:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 459FC3A6830 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:07:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qwi2 with SMTP id 2so1429773qwi.31 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:09:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qb7Ufd1NixzaBj/3/WXr4Ca4xYbwv627rmzuEG1ovrU=; b=dI3jxWS+sIrwgoTjMD90HDS7B8hTsIVi964iphVE9hDIRL70wy+z0xwY21kZJY7Tds 782VAHrI+F6oIPMH0YMBGAil0i1WPriOHpDHKnwfDwmfcaY/UupNZaLpCy8ryg/KtvD4 vMfi2P4thJTdo3cWMX6fMrtxW2Y+7Wa+hYpKg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=DSVqVIsd0Y+OyPNDb/ipm0+HolXIczustDqLD4L1G7GcGnD/mb0ket7shjXVpDEJEr o4sczM5lfGEIV2xzme3nJoonHqZhVnMssQLOm7S1UNeT4DsFlswEuv40i9VzDHuujBct sXuodxsaY9ARKAsa4+kqcgZzfVtQUoVXF8wUY=
Received: by 10.229.91.72 with SMTP id l8mr153733qcm.137.1295582996549; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:09:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.202.141 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:09:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4D38F9DC.9090107@stpeter.im>
References: <AANLkTi=hAM-UowEcXBdtZ3y9KK_cQ5wUsWJKTv=rOXT_@mail.gmail.com> <4D30F6FE.4020805@ics.uci.edu> <AANLkTinGQ_Up1Ot_rszzMNrofAqOyPczZ8Ei9NyqzKsg@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTine3_sGOf_TLUqY+te634_+PcVHKB7ovpOSLKZq@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=ihYsXqDaHwWFi88iM2SgoXWWy3jo2_-AhrLaJ@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimyRmOjwV=K=rU2bismpdCkNsT52_MWtFeDFRTZ@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTim0DFg1VXfegJ85cQSQuTZ66NmQULi7kf+pVwib@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTika90EbV8qFcwq43YSujfoarfLTtnnuM=EMPDUr@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimSnWb1g09+P++=ZTEgzkrir9RrNPUKNf2jOAr0@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTik5SNwv9jEf1QBwOoji0GTYNRvPdiT=P2pDfJ44@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinLZNps6h=x16gCgexaJFXdAYPgBdaj4UGs73S0@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimhWbyQMKWTbtu-8ci1Q39igXSEYHFkb_Vyqx+N@mail.gmail.com> <4D38F9DC.9090107@stpeter.im>
From: Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:09:35 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTikUujSB5CzYU2PJA87FudUf6ZkO7e+XE7JaUzJu@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: vwrap@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Status and future of the VWRAP working group
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, 21 Jan 2011 04:07:14 -0000

may i ask what our success metric is?

i mean, there's not a lot of material at the wiki morgaine pointed to,
nor has anyone volunteered to implement anything.

i have to figure out whether the DSD drafts are going into this WG or
will go as individual / informational submissions for the purpose of
registering their MIME types (as well as publicly describing the type
system used by sl8.us and various unannounced augmented reality
projects.)

i was able to crank out a reviewed 30 page intro in about four months.
could i ask that since there are no implementers, morgaine et al be
held to a reasonable page count and time frame? say at least 8 good
pages (that pass the general consensus review) in four months that
describe things like:

* terminology : virtual world, avatar, etc.
* "style" of interoperability: it is sufficient to define only object
formats? are we defining wire protocols for components that make up
virtual worlds? are we defining high level "interop between world"
(whatever the hell that means)
* what's in scope of the WG (since the charter was designed to be
intentionally vague and depend on the intro for a more detailed
description of the the group's scope)
* protocol objectives (assuming we're going to define wire protocols)
* protocol "architecture" ( are we going to send everything over UDP?
raw TCP sockets? layered on top of HTTP? XMPP? BEEP? SMTP/MIME? is
anyone left that cares about abstract type systems in this group? )
* use cases : what are we expecting to happen when a user sits down in
front of a user agent?
* deployment patterns : are we requiring a grid? are we going to run
simulator responders at known ports (i.e. - one sim responder per IP
address)?
* trust model : what if i want to have a region in a virtual world
accessable only to trusted entities? what if i want to make sure they
can't take certain virtual goods out of that region?

or... if we know peeps here aren't interested in an abstract type
system, with the chair's permission, i'll take my draft directly to
the rfc editors and ask them nicely to publish it as an informational
RFC / individual submission.

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



On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> wrote:
> With my area director hat still on...
>
> On 1/19/11 12:57 PM, Morgaine wrote:
>
>> A change of emphasis that makes interop between worlds a central goal
>> doesn't require a new IETF group, since that goal is the one that most
>> VWRAP contributors have expressed support for all along.  There is much
>> more continuity in this change than discontinuity.
>
> Agreed. However, it does require a rechartered IETF group, because our
> current charter is heavily focused on defining an abstract type system,
> specifying data formats for objects and avatars, and developing
> application-layer protocols establishing and moving avatars in a region,
> identifying and requesting information about entities, etc.
>
> The current charter is here:
>
>    http://tools.ietf.org/wg/vwrap/charters
>
> How would folks in this group modify the charter to properly scope the
> revised effort?
>
> Feel free to discuss that topic on this list, and to use the wiki as a
> sketchboard:
>
>    http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/vwrap/trac/wiki
>
> Oh, and did I mention that you can obtain login credentials for the Trac
> wiki at the following URL? ;-)
>
>    http://trac.tools.ietf.org/tools/loginmgr/newlogin
>
> Thanks!
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> https://stpeter.im/
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>