Re: [vwrap] is the group still interested in LLSD or DSD?

You're mixing up two very different questions, Meadhbh:  the first is
whether anyone is going to use DSD for something personally (in the way that
they have already used LLSD in the past), and the second is whether VWRAP
might adopt DSD for its type system.

The answer to the first is clearly "*Yes*" because it's already been done
with LLSD in an ad hoc fashion.  However, it would be excellent if you were
to publish a proper RFC on DSD, and even better if you could provide an
actual library and bindings/API for it.  None of the current implementations
of LLSD went as far as creating separate and directly usable LLSD API
projects maintained by their creators, as the libomv and C++ implementations
are entangled within the very large codebases of their respective projects,
and the other implementations are poor quality and not maintained.  You
could do much better than they did, and keep a discrete DSD library afloat
and up to date.  That would ensure its survival.

The answer to the second question is equally clearly "*No*", because IETF
working groups don't work through proposers' ultimatums.  A few weeks ago
there were significant questions raised here about whether LLSD/DSD is
adequate for a standard that is intended *for the future* of VWs rather than
for implementing today's SL and Opensim-based software, so it's clear that
the issue hasn't been decided and requires more examination.

Carlo put it (rather bluntly) here ---
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap/current/msg00569.html .  Without
going into the politics of it, I want to see VWRAP have a properly
extensible type system, and the current LLSD does not meet that
requirement.  Indeed, in the early days of our IETF effort, we spent months
discussing the width of integers in LLSD because there was only *one
width*allowed and it was
*hardwired* in the spec.  That's not an extensible approach to data types at
all.

We need to do a lot better in this area if we really mean "extensible" when
we say "extensible".  At present that ADT proposal is not extensible in any
meaningful way.

Morgaine.

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

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com> wrote:

> is anyone in this group still interested in using LLSD (or it's successor,
> DSD)?
>
> if so, i'm going to publish the DSD draft here. if not, i'm going to
> wait for the group to say "we are in no way interested in LLSD or DSD"
> and then submit it as an individual submission to the RFC editor. it's
> been about three years, and i would really like to get an RFC
> published so i can take the X- off all my application/llsd family of
> mime types.
>
> so... may i see a show of hands... is anyone still planning on
> implementing a system with LLSD in this group?
>
> please just respond yes or no in reply to this thread. i'll start
> another thread for discussion.
>
> -cheers
> -meadhbh
> --
> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * OhMeadhbh@gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>