Re: [mmox] Another proposal for LLSD draft

Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com> Thu, 12 February 2009 19:39 UTC

DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=YCnV2F4Jn3x8qwciF9SHUx94+IpJoHje2uGmFDd05GFgeIwQfUsqzcoO62A6o5roOZ f1bqKK9BZUaRtTu/GMeFXGESqNQi+62Fq5WtXL5eTnsQ23myZhPJrOITKwqhwYKtGFh4 nmr0nGWJ/5oIy1+w20XG70cW2K2qMJaQymo8M=
Message-ID: <49947AE3.9020504@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:39:15 -0800
From: Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mmox@ietf.org
References: <ebe4d1860902110250m597998aek3296da523f70892@mail.gmail.com> <49931BAA.10109@gmail.com> <e0b04bba0902112023r4380afc1o13f9deb719421214@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e0b04bba0902112023r4380afc1o13f9deb719421214@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [mmox] Another proposal for LLSD draft
Precedence: list

Morgaine Dinova wrote:
> Unless the MMOX protocols are intended to carry EVERYTHING related to 
> VWs (and they well might, though I doubt it), we really need to 
> partition the universe of discourse into those things that we intend 
> to cover and those things that we don't.  A list of inclusions and 
> exclusions (if any) would be very useful to direct the discussion ahead.

I don't even yet understand what mode of interoperability you're 
tackling here. For example, there's the "universal client" ghost, which 
doesn't actually solve any real business problems. Then there's the 
"porting content" area, where we're seeing a lot of demand from 
customers. There's also "tieing servers together" which actually enables 
new and interesting, never-before-seen applications.

For an argument for why a "universal client" is a non-solution, see 
http://www.interopworld.com/node/31
For a description of what "tieing server together" might enable, see 
http://www.interopworld.com/node/22

So, before we start talking too much about specific details of 
serializing data, I think it would be great if we first figured out what 
kinds of new applications we're trying to enable through interoperability.

Sincerely,

jw

Re: [mmox] LLSD -- Virtual World specific? Mark Lentczner
[mmox] Another proposal for LLSD draft Catherine Pfeffer
Re: [mmox] Another proposal for LLSD draft Jon Watte
Re: [mmox] Another proposal for LLSD draft Morgaine Dinova
Re: [mmox] Another proposal for LLSD draft Jon Watte
Re: [mmox] Another proposal for LLSD draft Lawson English
Re: [mmox] Another proposal for LLSD draft Jon Watte
Re: [mmox] Another proposal for LLSD draft Dahlia Trimble
Re: [mmox] Another proposal for LLSD draft Jon Watte
Re: [mmox] Another proposal for LLSD draft Morgaine Dinova
Re: [mmox] Another proposal for LLSD draft Dahlia Trimble
[mmox] interoperability goals thomas kirk
Re: [mmox] Another proposal for LLSD draft Suzy Deffeyes
Re: [mmox] Another proposal for LLSD draft Lawson English
Re: [mmox] Another proposal for LLSD draft Jon Watte
Re: [mmox] Another proposal for LLSD draft Jon Watte
Re: [mmox] Another proposal for LLSD draft Jon Watte
Re: [mmox] Another proposal for LLSD draft David W Levine
Re: [mmox] Another proposal for LLSD draft Jon Watte