Morgaine wrote:
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Lawson English <lenglish5 at cox.net
<mailto:lenglish5 at cox.net>> wrote:
It seems to me that the MOST touristy mode we will ever see is the
free-for-all from the original OGP test where simple TP and naught
else was supported.
There was no "free-for-all" interop in the original OGP test: there
was merely TP from an SL grid to several separately-administered sims,
with no framework in place for such sims to express their independent
policies, nor any design for such a framework. This was unable to
support a tourism model at all since that requires DDP otherwise
travellers from multiple worlds having distinct policies can't meet up
in a common tourist resort. It was very far indeed from a
free-for-all. In fact it was much more like a plan for region
assimilation by an advancing empire. ;-) All it could ever do is
build walled gardens.
Since the test required no agreements of any kind, but merely announcing the relative position of the sim on the grid to avoid technical issues with overlapping coordinates, I'm not sure how you can say that it was NOT a free-for-all. With no room for policy implementation, there's no policy period.
Your comment also needs to be examined in another light. "The MOST touristy mode we will ever see" /*from whom*/? Your words seem to presuppose that only the deployments by the current majority provider are relevant.
I would HOPE that any tourism mode that is implemented in the future by some provider for interop between two or more separate services will provide more than a default avatar with no asset sharing, no policy agreements, no appearance sharing, no nuttin'. Are you implying that we will see LESS features in a future service from someone or another? How low can we go? Tourism mode is, in my mind, the lowest common denominator of services that a minimal VWAP protocol will support.
It's important not to confuse what an individual world provider such as LL will do, and what the whole set of deployers of the protocol will do. If we are successful in specifying VWRAP services flexibly as envisaged by David, we can expect all the possible deployment patterns to be exercised to different degrees across the breadth of the Internet by many different providers and many individuals.
Well, no policy agreement, no money, no assets, no individual appearance, etc., seems like a pretty low bar to shoot for. I hope that the most minimal VWRAP definition will include at least as much as the original OGP test provided.
Lawson (Saijanai ISL)
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.