Re: [vwrap] The <embed> tag... is the group still interested in LLSD or DSD?

Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com> Sun, 08 May 2011 17:05 UTC

Return-Path: <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D929E0783 for <vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 May 2011 10:05:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zl5zWgMA1MzG for <vwrap@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 May 2011 10:05:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAB31E06F0 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 May 2011 10:05:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk29 with SMTP id 29so557600qyk.10 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Sun, 08 May 2011 10:05:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=40gRJd5P2GmNCUqAY61h4DLA7TuxdgBmWS5BvEM6vMg=; b=wCPSHdzqOHTFBEddbEThwrcPski5eDJgdF01/sJ82kuQsXxW8LYI5bvNGJO1fQkMIH ySiUOcfh9nVo2d24nxg2M34oLF1AV06KTLLC3tHGv7YxKESPSz8J1Iuv9I9uG6kGh6Jp vOwsoqL707C41obaV0V3LeF5Ei3bnWmevcJrQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=oE4ZLm+VBpp0gwZ0X2Fmr39r4MHC4Qfjp+OmReNpI7zcqmnkhGEXPIQSjNDkKakIqY OkDocru2q5JvR1HWdHVF3JDYSNz3Fm5lh9YcNzTUdvHNAo+Zo89Wf0JqPVlhZh7WiGJt DOdEyLnE6Sov6oP4/HSvgwE7wdYO6fDKQh9Zg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.127.96 with SMTP id f32mr4279314qcs.139.1304873826897; Sun, 08 May 2011 09:57:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.66.212 with HTTP; Sun, 8 May 2011 09:57:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4DC6BB19.1050305@gmail.com>
References: <BANLkTi=g9T5q5bVgytpxRxuE=Oc9iG2F9w@mail.gmail.com> <4DC1956A.5020204@gmail.com> <BANLkTik8rnsKP4xq+Gj5G4dsG=UOVnkNSQ@mail.gmail.com> <4DC1A8C9.9090406@gmail.com> <BANLkTikkOS34CC+ML0JNJgHDoRqbs9rY9w@mail.gmail.com> <4DC1D165.7010705@gmail.com> <4DC1D5FC.6040608@gmail.com> <BANLkTik81Eht3NTdLXXmgqOWvjc2s_KBnw@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=-heHa35w43te0ba8NufkT+MP+CQ@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTin6ExR7+xpodbtoTAS_4WyhUXL92Q@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTikjKib79_rLR_s2X=X-ss-+V_yw+w@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTim4aY7oNALbOfZ2V-htivVmQJZDiA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=7MDUAfjJb697uRwrrxB-4v5fQ3A@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=AeC1oLNGFwUWs0Yp_JNEKcaSsag@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTinNtJiq4JH5qvf36kiKmFtAQArvAA@mail.gmail.com> <4DC60610.3040606@gmail.com> <BANLkTinwSxG3=3eSnKjvFSB1k7fYOEKwPg@mail.gmail.com> <4DC61E3C.5080307@gmail.com> <BANLkTin=tyc+rUy=RvqCJ9r34j90v1nSGg@mail.gmail.com> <4DC6840B.9050203@gmail.com> <BANLkTinE87mmqLZyqgzWsEfi9cOk2br2nQ@mail.gmail.com> <4DC6BB19.1050305@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 17:57:06 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTim+CUYNNdxALF2W1+E5Vmj20Ar7tw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
To: vwrap@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cdf65f2edcdcd04a2c69c9f
Subject: Re: [vwrap] The <embed> tag... is the group still interested in LLSD or DSD?
X-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Sun, 08 May 2011 17:05:07 -0000

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>; wrote:

> Start with the solution (and the charter).
>
>
Sorry, but no.  You start with the requirements, or you'll get the wrong
solution.  Starting with the solution was what we did with OGP, and look
where it landed us.  After 2 years of work, we had to throw most of it away
because it didn't meet the central goal of providing interop between
worlds.  Let's not make that mistake again.

The same applies to our ADT system.  It has to meet important engineering
requirements, and the big ones are flexibility, extensibility, and
scalability, plus the efficiency that everybody needs.  The initial ADT
system of our first draft fails on all three relevant counts (scalability is
affected only through efficiency), which is why we're addressing those
defects now.


>
>  We need "best effort" first brought to the table. If you have something
> you can bring to this list and kill() if that something goes completely
> wrong, perfect enough. If you try to build something here first, then you
> don't have something OF YOUR OWN to kill.
>


No idea what most of that means, but the "best effort brought to the table"
I did understand, and we're working that out currently to our best efforts.
In particular, note the exchange of posts about this with Vaughn, including
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap/current/msg00853.html ,
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap/current/msg00855.html  and
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap/current/msg00858.html .  The
discussion has been a good one, aided also by contributions from Joshua,
Meadhbh, Dahlia and Boroondas.  It has been a technical discussion, and it
has been leading us forward.  You clearly don't want to contribute
technically on this topic, which is your choice, but don't accuse the rest
of us of bringing nothing to the table.  We're working on it, productively,
and the discussion has been entirely technical with the other participants.


>
> > "...please don't block us from working on it."
>
> Please, don't try to turn this around back in the opposite direction again
> and blame biosystematicals on me. If you want to go in the opposite
> direction, the bring what you already have to the table.



I've got no time for this.  Stick to technical topics please.

>
>
> > "You're confusing two different "LLSD"."
>
> We have not confused multiple licenses. Others on this list (and other WGs)
> have demonstrated awareness of this and don't cross-judge this documentation
> based on theirs or others implementation.
>
> Blackbox the details on another list. Clarify the protocol on this list.
> Simple. Also note, some of us are doctors and some of us are scientists.
> There are reasons we don't share the pen, as this principle alone kills the
> obvious argument. Please consider *at least this much* about the pen with
> everything you write here. If you want to write the draft, then be the
> doctor! Don't kill() others scientists.



Licenses have nothing to do with this.  And stick to technical topics
please.


Morgaine.





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

On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>; wrote:

> Start with the solution (and the charter).
>
>
> On 05/08/2011 05:38 AM, Morgaine wrote:
>
>> "I don't have exact text, we're working out the details first on the list,
>> and once we have those worked out, and we see a consensus forming, then we
>> can start writing an updated document ready for the next draft."
>>
>
> We need "best effort" first brought to the table. If you have something you
> can bring to this list and kill() if that something goes completely wrong,
> perfect enough. If you try to build something here first, then you don't
> have something OF YOUR OWN to kill.
>
> > "...please don't block us from working on it."
>
> Please, don't try to turn this around back in the opposite direction again
> and blame biosystematicals on me. If you want to go in the opposite
> direction, the bring what you already have to the table.
>
>
> > "You're confusing two different "LLSD"."
>
> We have not confused multiple licenses. Others on this list (and other WGs)
> have demonstrated awareness of this and don't cross-judge this documentation
> based on theirs or others implementation.
>
> Blackbox the details on another list. Clarify the protocol on this list.
> Simple. Also note, some of us are doctors and some of us are scientists.
> There are reasons we don't share the pen, as this principle alone kills the
> obvious argument. Please consider *at least this much* about the pen with
> everything you write here. If you want to write the draft, then be the
> doctor! Don't kill() others scientists.
>
> Dear Happy Mothers Day, thanks for the most awesome academy!
>
>
> --
> --- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
> Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>