Subject: [mmox] Schedule for marshalling / unmarshalling foundation

From: Catherine Pfeffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 14:28:52 +0100

Gareth said:
> October 2009  Publication of LLSD Draft as an Informational RFC
>
> Is there a reason this milestone is set so late? LLSD is already
> fairly well defined. I would go so far as to say that the existing
> specs and code can be RFC-alised as-is with only some subtle changes
> as compatibility dictates.

Perharps October is a bit far away for this, yes. But some people have
expressed serious concerns about details like all integers being 32 bits and
signed. I think that simply rubberstamping "existing specs and code" would
be a mistake. There is not even an agreement on the xxSD name. Not to say
there is still an ongoing debate about whether LLSD is the way to go, or
whether an existing mechanism like ASN should be preferred. Even though I
think LLSD has a lot of merits, I think such questioning should not be
evacuated with the back of the hand.

As for the attempt to eject pseudonymous users like me from this mailing
list. it is not appreciated. While I recognize IETF will never provide
attribution for intellectual material suggested by anonymous and
pseudonymous users, I think that external persons who have no business
interests in this all affair but only their love for virtual worlds and
intellectual honesty to bring in should be allowed to lurk and comment on
this mailing list.

-- 
Cathy

---

From: "Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:33:33 -0800

On Feb 21, 2009, at 5:28 AM, Catherine Pfeffer wrote:

> Perharps October is a bit far away for this, yes. But some people  
> have expressed serious concerns about details like all integers  
> being 32 bits and signed. I think that simply rubberstamping  
> "existing specs and code" would be a mistake. There is not even an  
> agreement on the xxSD name. Not to say there is still an ongoing  
> debate about whether LLSD is the way to go, or whether an existing  
> mechanism like ASN should be preferred. Even though I think LLSD has  
> a lot of merits, I think such questioning should not be evacuated  
> with the back of the hand.

+1 cathy.

our aim is "consensus + working code" and i don't think we'll get  
consensus without extensive discussion.

however... i would point out... no one has published a draft for an  
abstract type system under a different name, so i think the LLSD name  
is probably going to stick.

and ASN.1 / BER encoding is not appropriate for loosely coupled systems.

---

From: "Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:39:41 -0800

On Feb 21, 2009, at 5:28 AM, Catherine Pfeffer wrote:

> As for the attempt to eject pseudonymous users like me from this  
> mailing list. it is not appreciated. While I recognize IETF will  
> never provide attribution for intellectual material suggested by  
> anonymous and pseudonymous users, I think that external persons who  
> have no business interests in this all affair but only their love  
> for virtual worlds and intellectual honesty to bring in should be  
> allowed to lurk and comment on this mailing list.

let me be clear about this.

there has been NO attempt to eject users simply because they wish to  
participate pseudonymously.

the policy is to allow pseudonymous participation in the list. but  
pseudonymous participation does NOT relieve you of your requirement to  
disclose your IPR as outlined in the frequently mentioned NOTEWELL  
page at http://www.ietf.org/NOTEWELL.html and the IETF IPR disclosure  
page at https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/about/ .

IETF policy also requires the use of legal names on internet drafts  
and rfcs.

but yes. pseudonymous participation, as long as it remains  
constructive and on-topic, is allowed and welcomed.

-cheers
-meadhbh

---

From: Lawson English <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 14:47:08 -0700

Catherine Pfeffer wrote:
> expressed serious concerns about details like all integers being 32 
> bits and signed. I think that simply rubberstamping "existing specs 
> and code" would be a mistake. There is not even an agreement on the 
> xxSD name. Not to say there is still an ongoing debate about whether 
> LLSD is the way to go, or whether an existing mechanism like ASN 
> should be preferred. Even though I think LLSD has a lot of merits, I 
> think such questioning should not be evacuated with the back of the hand.
>
> mailing list. it is not appreciated. While I recognize IETF will never 
> provide attribution for intellectual material suggested by anonymous 
> and pseudonymous users, I think that external persons who have no 
> business interests in this all affair but only their love for virtual 
> worlds and intellectual honesty to bring in should be allowed to lurk 
> and comment on this mailing list.
>

+1 Cathy. though, for some vague definition of "on topic" we should 
probably try to keep posts "on topic" (says the ultimate spamdroid of 
Second Life).

L.