Re: [vwrap] Moving ahead with draft-ietf-vwrap-intro

[Jon Freedman <[e-mail]>]

Hello Everyone,

I want to throw in my two pieces of abstract virtual world currency into the
mix. After perusing the vwrap-intro draft in depth, I have a few comments. I
realize that some of this may have been raised before in previous
discussions.

The overall document and standardization roadmap makes is great. The
technology and specifications laid out are generic enough that they should
be able to encompass many forms of virtual worlds and the applications which
inevitably evolve upon stable platforms. In my humble opinion the
requirement of HTTP/REST semantics and suggestion for the use of XMPP as a
messaging protocol are great to see.

On the surface, the draft supports multiple means of deploying a virtual
world. This ranges from local development environments to large
distributed/scalable grids. Everyone seems to agree that support of multiple
models is important, and I feel that this document does address that need.
My only concern in this area is highly related to my overall concern with
the document as it currently stands.

I am wondering if it acceptable for me to give the document a quick overall
pass to help improve some of the language use ? I realize this is a draft so
hopefully this is a good time for such endeavours. Many sections lack
clarity and multiple virtual world colloquialisms are used. Assuming there
are no issues, I will send a txt version of my edits to this list within a
few days.

Cheers,

-- 
Jonathan Freedman
President
Open Metaverse Foundation
[phone]


-- 
Jonathan Freedman
President
Open Metaverse Foundation
[phone]