Re: [mmox] Chartering for requirements only

Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com> Fri, 27 February 2009 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0D133A67B6 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:25:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.827
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.827 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_RMML_Stock10=0.13]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RjncLP4nPW+w for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:25:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-fx0-f176.google.com (mail-fx0-f176.google.com [209.85.220.176]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D4BE3A68E8 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:25:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fxm24 with SMTP id 24so1239664fxm.37 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:25:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=IXK7GhXqJN0dn89GOukNeYQn78K+W3vBAgij66bCig4=; b=AltS89PMrUZ/WC+GJjrOaBnwMBvYGTjqC3EsqqN/jAMxyLRoR665K3/ONOlmc573NT X/cLFaGvSGJM/gL/aSyMmGlxWYbnUGe2RGei9b6gOtMzRGlwQiqcPGdrNQsqFA2y2KbP C1ELHi5+79XIK1EZIWorsKF6M3pvCRBKUkew0=
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 :cc:content-type; b=jmb2cQskiJE3S4Sne5YYpVvaGlCcFW0zimjNUE+BxeniAZbAZi0BQat4BGZgjIiGkL 2SG0FOyIG1QFpXnOverprhfCkA5VFVdRX3aK3dxV2TbkQMcLY20xHX0B8P+cU+AarKLs GpsYfyrgMv1gIk+5TY8007L5CxW31ivZRZXd4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.181.207.9 with SMTP id j9mr1001960bkq.149.1235769944255; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:25:44 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <49A80BE4.7000206@cox.net>
References: <5f303cb80902251309p48e4bc3p7496abdc7ac699a4@mail.gmail.com> <e0b04bba0902270149n453f530am27f7436cae1ca0ea@mail.gmail.com> <53cd6c2e0902270323y7516dbd2kf8780822edecf96e@mail.gmail.com> <49A7DC37.1050002@cox.net> <e0b04bba0902270740j5e348515wb4d17f3540fed8eb@mail.gmail.com> <49A80BE4.7000206@cox.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:25:44 +0000
Message-ID: <e0b04bba0902271325v1cdd7aa1tb25ae396f55b6a9d@mail.gmail.com>
From: Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
To: lenglish5@cox.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0016e6d5094c8d2d780463ed1c7d"
Cc: mmox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mmox] Chartering for requirements only
X-BeenThere: mmox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Massively Multi-participant Online Games and Applications <mmox.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox>, <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox>
List-Post: <mailto:mmox@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox>, <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:25:26 -0000

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Lawson English <lenglish5@cox.net> wrote:

But interoperation between worlds is obviously eaisier with some than
> others.


Indeed, but I have to reiterate that defining interop between two very
similar worlds is of no interest to anyone else.



> It seems to me that YOU are proposing an "all or none" solution here.


I would call it a "have your cake and eat it too" solution, since I've
suggested a way for both parties to make progress without impeding each
other.   Much closer to an "all or nothing" situation is the "LLSD/OGP or
nothing" impasse that we have now. ;-)

I can see three ways to help us work more cooperatively:

   1. Work in two streams, one explicitly OGP which is very targetted at a
   specific solution, and the other explicitly MMOX which is much wider, with
   people contributing to one or both.  If MMOX identifies other possible
   solutions then additional workgroups could be created to handle them.
   2. Remove the constraints (expressed as an
intention<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox/current/msg00627.html>)
   imposed by LL on the solution space, so that MMOX can find common ground
   among VW architectures and then seek solutions without being placed in a
   straightjacket by Linden-only issues.  Notice that this may even lead to OGP
   being identified as a good solution.
   3. Unpack the OGP proposal in all its glory into all the
   {problem,solution} pairs that led up to it, and describe the details in a
   marathon session of explanation/indoctrination so that there can be broad
   buy-in to that technology from a large proportion of MMOX participants.  If
   they agree that LLSD/OGP can solve the interop problem for their own worlds
   equitably, then we might be onto a winner.

It's worth pointing out that we have spent 16 months in AWG talking about
OGP, so we have a good grasp of how it can be adapted for interop among very
diverse worlds.  A large proportion of MMOX participants do not have the
benefit of our deliberations, and so the lack of wide backing for what is
seen as "Linden Lab's solution" is not very surprising.  (And some
participants who are fully aware of OGP have questioned its appropriateness
too, so this issue is by no means settled.)

Something needs to be done, or the lack of even a rough consensus might
impact badly on our ability to form a workgroup after the BoF, let alone
actually get good work done.  I don't mind which path we take, as long as it
provides a means of cooperation in place of outright conflict.  (A bit of
conflict is of course both inevitable and useful.)

And flexibility is mandatory whichever path we take.  Tying the group down
to suit one particular vendor's business requirements is not satisfactory
for a group targetting a broad problem space.


Morgaine.