[mmox] Creating walled gardens considered harmful

Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com> Wed, 25 March 2009 07:06 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 0B81C3A6A1A for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.122
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.122 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.635, BAYES_05=-1.11, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 ISE4u6LNOR9T for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ey-out-2122.google.com (ey-out-2122.google.com [74.125.78.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A35E03A67B2 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:06:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ey-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 4so634041eyf.31 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=oGbRA8DPmOBwL7mria0xPQfjiuACjLWOjEFzmtK0e5w=; b=tBYaWetfiXJ7U9ZsdmtnQTYt8TvywqxN4e4U8cfrxseGMbj0cX7SITbWDw5YgX9gZe nTL/mnmhdHkrpO0ob7UFFAV7FCqUwzb2qN0SsYYbx8fdfM7AVbFxS6CDs2tDJnHgnpBo n1BdQyajWlcC3nwZwlYl1mWCIiq8XgCa9cEes=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=PHS6ARlVsNBFP/EIQSqMNcFPHR4UEEM9xGP9440RXqIOsPFeoY8wUFQV2Ngg8q5U7U WFKmTOuwCHVaVK5TJ0nIREEmwNsHXqzCH5qkSQ2Btbr7gtzV99JK6vovXeQgtixiTBGT JaNcYT+vpsJFdV59lFORzU6/Zr/diQAXaRt2I=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.210.69.6 with SMTP id r6mr3876215eba.56.1237964852542; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:07:32 +0000
Message-ID: <e0b04bba0903250007k6886383bja0a06884e8081ac7@mail.gmail.com>
From: Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
To: MMOX-IETF <mmox@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0015174bdfde47bf300465ec270d"
Subject: [mmox] Creating walled gardens considered harmful
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: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:06:43 -0000

What an excellent BoF!

I believe that MMOX can validly claim a complete victory from the day's
events.

With so many excellent formal presentations and an astounding number of very
insightful contributions from the floor, ably mediated by very fair and
effective chairing, I think we were blessed to succeed, and we did.
Congratulations to everybody. :-)

On the substance, this will probably take many weeks of analysis, but I
would like to highlight here just one of the many insightful contributions
that were made.  (Unfortunately I cannot pin down exactly who said it.)

Splitting the work of MMOX into various implementation-oriented groups would
be an excellent way of making progress, but it carries a *severe danger*:  *it
could create several non-interoperating walled gardens*, if the groups work
independently without a common view and purpose.

While that might be better than no interop at all, it would be an
inappropriate result for a single MMOX workgroup to
*endorse*non-interoperation.  If we are to remain as one group, I
would propose that
there be an oversight team appointed as well, to ensure that sufficient
extensibility be built into each subgroup to avoid total segmentation into
walled gardens.

The requirements for this need not be onerous, as it could be achieved
through simple avoidance of all-or-nothing protocols.  As a specific example
arising from the Weblin presentation, an isolated ecosystem of Second
Life-like worlds should still be able to provide avatar data for use in
Weblin worlds, despite there being no full interop.  This could be achieved
quite simply by good decoupling of services and avoidance of service
bundling.

If we are consciously creating separate gardens, they should *not* be walled
off.  Let us work towards achieving *some degree of interop* even among our
subgroups, so that as a unified MMOX we can claim victory at the end as well
as at the start of this process.


Morgaine.