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

[Izzy Alanis <[e-mail]>]

Meant to say "shared *asset* services" there...

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Izzy Alanis <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Are you suggesting a re-charter around shared services only?
> Or that we shift the deliverables to push that to the forefront? (In
> which case, we still really do need an intro doc and to address the
> messaging semantics)
>
> I'm not quite convinced that the charter is unsalvageable. I think the
> last rev of the intro has a lot of good things in it too -- lots I
> would like to see changed, but good stuff too.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Morgaine
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I'm glad to see some renewed participation here!  Perhaps the threat of
>> death sharpens the mind. ;-)
>>
>> Since there seems to be some fresh thinking in the air, I am going to add
>> two short points to the discussion.  The first is a matter of procedure, and
>> the second is related to our technical direction:
>>
>> Notwithstanding that the IETF places certain duties on Barry and others to
>> ensure that there is visible progress in the form of documents, I must say
>> that "documents at all costs" is not a particularly good way of achieving
>> technical progress.  It's the "documents at all costs" push that gave us
>> several documents previously, only one of which turned out to be usable for
>> interoperation between VWs.  Documents churned out before there is agreement
>> on goals and direction are a hindrance to the process, not an indicator of
>> progress, and they waste everyone's time.  Progress is certainly not a
>> matter of just putting pen to paper, as has been suggested.  Far from it.
>> First we must agree as a group on how a given protocol is going to meet our
>> goals, and drafts then present that formally with hard technical details
>> added.  Done the other way around just results in much angst and wasted
>> effort, as happened here.
>>
>> Given the almost unanimous agreement that crystallized around Crista's
>> thread of a few months ago which could be paraphrased as "The VWRAP
>> documents do nothing for interop between virtual worlds", I would like to
>> suggest that instead of continuing to beat the dead horse of OGP that we
>> still have on our hands, why don't we focus on delivering something that is
>> actually usable by compatible groups like Opensim and realXtend and iED?
>> There is a nugget of gold at the heart of the VWRAP concept which can
>> provide exactly that:  the idea of shared asset services, and a protocol for
>> accessing them.
>>
>> There is a huge amount of activity in our sector of the virtual worlds
>> community.  There is also no end of interest in interoperation, but the
>> trouble seems to be that each group is rather narrowly focused on their own
>> particular code base.  Where I think a group such as ours can contribute is
>> by providing a lightweight protocol which is easily used by all, without the
>> previous baggage.  Simple problems demand simple solutions, and while a
>> massively scalable shared asset service is not exactly simple, it is
>> nevertheless a lot simpler than the much larger task that we had set
>> ourselves previously.
>>
>> Perhaps that would be a good place to start, afresh.
>>
>>
>> Morgaine.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =====================================
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Reminder: If anyone's done anything related to what's below, please
>>> post here and get some discussion going.  There's still about two and
>>> a half weeks to get something ready.
>>>
>>> Barry, as chair
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>> As for timescales, we already started work on a new Intro in October
>>> >>> and
>>> >>> November, as I described in my first email in this thread.  It was
>>> >>> being
>>> >>> done informally, not as an official draft but as input to a totally
>>> >>> new
>>> >>> draft.  It was not being done as a revision because the previous Intro
>>> >>> simply did not meet key requirements for many contributors, as was
>>> >>> clear
>>> >>> from the group's very intense discussions of September.
>>> >>
>>> >> Can you see if you can get it into reasonable shape to introduce
>>> >> publicly, and then submit it as draft-morgaine-vwrap-intro-00 ?  That
>>> >> would give people something concrete to work from.
>>> >
>>> > I haven't seen any activity on this, so let me repeat this with a
>>> > deadline:
>>> >
>>> > The chairs ask the proponents to please get a new intro document into
>>> > reasonable (not final) shape to introduce publicly, and to submit it
>>> > as an Internet Draft with a name like "draft-SOMEONE-vwrap-intro-00"
>>> > by 10 April (the significance of which will be left for the reader to
>>> > research, should s/he care to).  There may, of course, be any
>>> > (reasonable) number of authors listed on the draft, and any one may be
>>> > the name chosen to live in the draft name.
>>> >
>>> > If we're not able to do that, I think we need to seriously question
>>> > whether there's enough real energy to continue.
>>> >
>>> > Barry, as chair
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> vwrap mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> vwrap mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>>
>>
>