Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in the protocol

[Mike Dickson <[e-mail]>]

  On 09/22/2010 12:14 AM, Hurliman, John wrote:
> This is closer to what I had in my head for VWRAP. Start with the goal of a portable virtual world presence, and a couple of necessary services fall out of that:
>
> * Identity/Authentication
> * Assets (possibly Inventory, maybe)
> * Teleport (both login and simulation to simulation)
>
> Which will in turn require:
>
> * Type system
> * Capabilities/X.509/insert_security_here
> * Avatar file format?
> * Event queue?
>
> And leave everything else for VWRAP2. If we can standardize those services and meet that first goal it will be much easier to tackle things like friends or groups or avatar movement / state simulation or anything else. I don't know if there is any industry demand for a virtual world avatar movement RFC, but other people have different perspectives. I'm strongly in favor of working toward the portable virtual world presence and supporting service definitions first though.
>
> John
I like this list for a first effort though it leaves alot unspecified 
and from a user perspective a system that just implements to this level 
won't be terribly exciting.  That doesn't mean that implementations 
can't fill in extras (things like IM, currency, script compatability, 
etc may be uninteresting to some but if your trying to implement a 
production system they become important to the user experience pretty 
quickly).

I think if we focus on John's list, identify how services decompose that 
implement that and then specify that as VWRAP we'd have made a good 
initial effort and can then move on to some of the more difficult issues.

Mike