Subject: [mmox] Making a few things explicit

From: Catherine Pfeffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:21:07 +0100

> Catherine, some of the "omissions" you mention actually reflect a
desirable
> property of specifications:  Separation of Concerns.

Fine, but then it should be made clear in the spec:

  "Agreement on the type of serialization used between two communicating
parties is not in the scope of this document"

  "How typical virtual virtual worlds data map into LLSD is beyond the scope
of this document"

  "Exact transport mechanism (TCP, UDP, ...) used to transport the
serialized data is not defined here"

I think that could only clarify things.

The remark about LLIDL not being in the same document was not relevant,
that's what section 4 and appendix C are all about. Reading fast =
understanding wrong, sorry.

Also, writing in the spec a justification on why not using one of the
existing IDL languages and marshalling/demarshalling protocols would not
harm, IMHO. Reasons already invoked here include simplicity, versatility and
adaptation to situations implied by massive multiparty environments.

Just my two eurocents.

-- 
Cathy

---

From: Meadhbh Hamrick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:46:07 -0800

good points all.

the ietf defines two types of docs: technical standards and 
applicability statements. the existing LLSD draft is more the former, 
what we're talking about is more the latter.

my sense is that the statements below shouldn't go into the spec itself, 
but into a related applicability statement. but yeah... it should be 
done. lemme spend a bit of time working on one.

fwiw... there have been many informal discussions in the past about why 
we (Linden Lab) didn't use ASN.1 or XDR or JSON. most of these 
discussions have been in public places, but haven't been collated into a 
coherent explanation. i can't imagine trying to get LLSD published as an 
RFC without at least 10 more people asking the question... "why not 
ASN.1?" so yeah... that's something else that should be documented 
somewhere.

but... we wanted to keep the motivation for the spec out of the spec, 
believing it would make a more readable document.

-cheers
-meadhbh
Catherine Pfeffer wrote:
>   "Agreement on the type of serialization used between two 
> communicating parties is not in the scope of this document"
>
>   "How typical virtual virtual worlds data map into LLSD is beyond the 
> scope of this document"
>
> The remark about LLIDL not being in the same document was not 
> relevant, that's what section 4 and appendix C are all about. Reading 
> fast = understanding wrong, sorry.
>
>
> existing IDL languages and marshalling/demarshalling protocols would 
> not harm, IMHO. Reasons already invoked here include simplicity, 
> versatility and adaptation to situations implied by massive multiparty 
> environments.
>
>
> Just my two eurocents.
>
> -- 
> Cathy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>