Subject: [mmox] taxonomy of topics

From: Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity) <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:08:04 -0800

so... what started as a pleasant little proposal to take our (the  
awg's) pleasant little protocol (ogp) kick it around in public (the  
mmox mailing list) and potentially generate some RFCs from it seems to  
have spawned a number of discussions. _all_ of the discussions are  
interesting, but perhaps not all of them are germane to the proposed  
task.

so i ask.. is it appropriate to limit the discussion here to the MMOX  
Charter, LLSD, OGP and HyperGrid with occasional reference to the IETF  
IPR Disclosure Policy?

to be sure... we _are_ in the stage where the charter is important to  
discuss... but i'm just wondering... and these questions are here to  
spark _conversation_, not radical debate. there are rational answers,  
pro and con, to each of these questions and teasing them out is  
important...
	* why would we care about HLA, DIS or IEEE-1278? they're already  
standardized. (though understanding that the structure of something  
like OGP differs from the structure of these protocols _is_ important.)
	* why do we care about OLIVE, which is a proprietary protocol with a  
single implementation?
	* why do we care about MXP whose apparent dependence on another  
protocol with unclear IPR encumbrance gives some people on this list  
the willies.

so the questions i pose are...
	* pursuit of which of these topics brings us to our goal of an  
interoperable virtual worlds?
	* what does it mean to be interoperable?
	* must we have early agreement on all topics before we move forward  
with any component?

* OGP (Open Grid Protocol)
	* should OGP be named something else?
	* how do we do the event queue? (COMET? Bayeux? RHTTP? Long Poll?)
	* where do we stuff permissions in this model?
	* OGP/Teleport is not HyperGrid
* LLSD
	* why is LLSD different from XDR? ASN.1? Google ProtocolBuffers?
	* 128 bit integers? good enough?
	* should LLSD be named something else?
	* XML serialization
		* maps are too much like apple plists in the XML serialization.
* MMOX Charter
	* we should rename everything
	* we should abandon interoperability in favor of general agreement of  
model
* IETF
* Virtual Worlds in General
	* Previously Established Protocols
		* HLA, DIS, IEEE-1278 and related protocols
		* OLIVE
		* MXP?
		* VRML
	* Representation of virtual objects
		* meshes vs. prims
		* interaction models for virtual objects
	* Intellectual Property Regimes for Virtual Worlds
		* Creative Commons (awesome gateway to free culture or the ultimate  
embodiment of evil in the noosphere?)
		* DRM (the only way i'll trust you with my content or the ultimate  
embodiment of evil in the noosphere?)
	* permissions regime
		* MPEG-21?
		* must we mandate the SL-style c/m/t permission?

---

From: Suzy Deffeyes <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:38:44 -0600

re: other standards.... Discussion of other standards that exist in this
area is totally appropriate, if a good match for a particular area of the
standard already exists and has a community of tools and support for it, we
should consider adopting it.

re: how to proceed. It does feel like there are a lot of conversations in
the MMOX group that are diving into minute detail, and I still feel that
there are widely differing ideas on what the word Interoperability means.
We don't all have to have an identical view on what Interoperability means.

I think it would help us to define things in terms of the Use Cases we want
to support. Use Cases could be defined in terms of functionality,
capability, and services available for an end user ( end loser? :-).

Some examples of Use Cases:
1. User maintains same identity, and moves between grids (should define the
word grid), there is no concept of inventory items having "restrictions" on
them
2. Same as 1, but with full up "Annie Get Your Gun" policy and mechanisms in
place for inventory item permissions
3. End users with different viewer technologies collaborate in a shared
space. The shared space contains a chair that is simulated by Virtual World
A and a motorcycle simulated by Virtual Worlds B
4.....
5....

re: proprietary... I tend to care about OLIVE because it is outside our
little SL/OS teleport bubble. They have different Use Cases that are
important to them, and might be interesting to see where we can have some
overlap. Perhaps in the overlap areas, a proprietary vendor might feel the
benefit of adding their own proposal outweighs the benefits of staying
proprietary.

Suzy Deffeyes
Pixel Gausman
IBM

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Infinity Meadhbh Hamrick <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> so... what started as a pleasant little proposal to take our (the awg's)
> pleasant little protocol (ogp) kick it around in public (the mmox mailing
> list) and potentially generate some RFCs from it seems to have spawned a
> number of discussions. _all_ of the discussions are interesting, but perhaps
> not all of them are germane to the proposed task.
>
> Charter, LLSD, OGP and HyperGrid with occasional reference to the IETF IPR
> Disclosure Policy?
>
> discuss... but i'm just wondering... and these questions are here to spark
> _conversation_, not radical debate. there are rational answers, pro and con,
> to each of these questions and teasing them out is important...
> standardized. (though understanding that the structure of something like OGP
> differs from the structure of these protocols _is_ important.)
> protocol with unclear IPR encumbrance gives some people on this list the
> willies.
>
>        * we should abandon interoperability in favor of general agreement
> of model
> * IETF
>                * Creative Commons (awesome gateway to free culture or the
> ultimate embodiment of evil in the noosphere?)
>                * DRM (the only way i'll trust you with my content or the
> ultimate embodiment of evil in the noosphere?)
>        * permissions regime
>                * MPEG-21?
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>

---

From: "Hurliman, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:51:25 -0700

If this is a request to limit what topics will be discussed by MMOX, can we please cut LLSD, OGP, and HyperGrid out of the discussion? I've posted my critiques of both to this mailing list and I feel that using another IDL such as Google Protocol Buffers, and starting over from scratch for cross-domain communication would be in the better interest of the virtual world interop. HyperGrid is another implementation of the same trust map proposal of OGP (with different default settings), and no one has suggested that they will be submitting it as a proposal.

John

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
>Meadhbh Hamrick
>Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 8:08 AM
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [mmox] taxonomy of topics
>

---

From: Jon Watte <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:58:36 -0800

> Charter, LLSD, OGP and HyperGrid with occasional reference to the IETF 

No, because neither OGP nor HyperGrid is suitably vendor/solution 
neutral at this point.
And, to get to what ought to be vendor neutral interoperability, we 
first need to define what that is. The ability to tunnel Second Life 
derived client/server stream data in an open container is probably not it.
The argument "it's already implemented" can be said about many things. 
The Quake protocol is already implemented, and has been used for a lot 
of client/server interoperability. OLIVE has at least three 
interoperability protocols implemented and in use by paying customers 
(DIS, HLA, and a non-published entity protocol).
The point is to examine each possible candidate for applicability to 
open, vendor-neutral interoperability that enables applications that 
currently are not enabled. Then make a determination of effort/benefit 
for each, and go from there towards something that has "rough consensus" 
(whatever that means).

>
>     * why do we care about OLIVE, which is a proprietary protocol with 
> a single implementation?

Because it is one of many, many virtual worlds in existence, and we are 
committed to providing good value to our customers. We believe this 
includes interoperability. Are you saying that your view of 
interoperability is "my way or the highway"?

> * OGP (Open Grid Protocol)

Is there a later published proposal than version 4 on the Second Life 
MMOX Wiki?

Anyway, if that is your approach, then I think a lot of us who are not 
from OpenSim or other Second Life derived technology should simply 
withdraw from participation. The question then is why task it under the 
IETF, when you could probably do it faster and easier within the Second 
Life AWG?

Sincerely,

jw

---

From: Christian Scholz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:41:30 +0100

Hi!

>     * why do we care about OLIVE, which is a proprietary protocol with a 

Because we could maybe learn something from it. I want to know how OLIVE 
works, I want to know how Qwak works, how Croquet works and so on. I 
also want to know what their use cases are they are trying to solve and 
why the have choosen certain routes to go over others.

> interoperable virtual worlds?

I think we should start with a collection of use cases, see where we can 
find common ground on these and then try to find which protocol or 
format is best suited for it. We have proposals on the table which we 
can discuss and weight the pro and cons of each. We also should IMHO 
wherever we can use existing protocols instead of inventing our own.

>     * what does it mean to be interoperable?

That's maybe an output from the use case discussion.

>     * must we have early agreement on all topics before we move forward 

Probably not on all topics but we should have a general agreement on a 
plan on how we move forward ;-)

>     * OGP/Teleport is not HyperGrid

I think that's too early to answer and I think OGP as it is now will not 
be adopted by most other VW vendors anyway. We need to first find the 
common ground on which we can interoperate and then we should choose the 
best format by evaluating existing standards and new proposals.
Then we can come up with a hopefully flexible enough solution which 
survives a bit.
I doubt that anybody will come away with some substantial engineering 
effort to make thinks work.

>         * maps are too much like apple plists in the XML serialization.

The same applies here and IMHO should be deferred until we know better 
what problem we have to solve.

> * Virtual Worlds in General

As said earlier, I would like to broaden certain areas up to also 
include the web (and talk to those people working on the web side of 
things on such stuff, e.g. OAuth people. You might even meet them at the 
meeting, but I am not sure how this is organized and if 
cross-pollination on IETF meetings is happening.

>         * must we mandate the SL-style c/m/t permission?

Again too early to say IMHO. The only thing which IMHO should be there 
is flexibility in that you may support various protocols to be future 
compatible but we limit the choice down now to a very small set of what 
MUST be implemented. Maybe it's even just one we define here but this 
could be replaced at some point (would be easy with a general means if 
service discovery as possible with e.g. XRD or POWDER).

-- Christian

-- 
Christian Scholz
Blog: http://mrtopf.de/blog
Company: http://comlounge.net
Podcasts: http://datawithoutborders.net, http://openweb-podcast.de

---

From: Kajikawa Jeremy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:53:36 +0900

> 	* OGP/Teleport is not HyperGrid

Open Grid Protocol currently limits itself by recognising SecondLife
specifics before
 usability across to non-SecondLife services.

an *interoperability* protocol needs to be based on a common formatting
with layer
  approach similar to how the logical and physical layers of ethernet
are seperated.

Recognition of Identity - One User - Many VWs with Seperate or same
login to all?
Recognition of location -  Where is the representation of the User? a
single VW or
 multiple VWs sharing a common "location area" ?

> 		* maps are too much like apple plists in the XML serialization.

LLSD or any other "format"/"protocol" and similar is binding
nomenclature of
 an existing "name" and pushing recognition,  the OpenGridProtocol would
need
 to allow the serialization to be modularized and an option to replace
it when
 newer specification versions need such a major change.

> 	* we should abandon interoperability in favor of general agreement of  

 is MMOX a branching of Linden Labs specifically or is this an *open*
standard?

Does linden lab want a delayed backlash from technical users akin to the
backlash
 from Microsofts efforts with the MSOOXML and its having country votes
*against*
 becoming a ratified standard?

I propose a more fine-grained modular approach in the design of included
material,
  OGP as it is may need to be changed from having LLSD serialization. 

> 		* HLA, DIS, IEEE-1278 and related protocols
Definitely be aware of these and how are they different? 

> 		* interaction models for virtual objects
What is common and what is uncommon already? ... do we re-use an open
format for
 serialization of OGP?

> 		* must we mandate the SL-style c/m/t permission?

Mandating C/M/T from SecondLife or *any* kind of permissions into the
serialization
 is in my own opinion a mistake and will lock the protocol to needing
that section
 changed at cost in the future...  

Defining a block extensible now will save effort

---

From: Morgaine <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:59:36 +0000

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Infinity Meadhbh Hamrick <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> not all of them are germane to the proposed task.

I suspect that this is precisely the source of many of the problems that
have preoccupied MMOX discussions across many threads.  Giving OGP the IETF
treatment and generating some very useful RFCs is an admirable cause, an
extension of AWG work, and would greatly advance interop between SL-like
worlds.

Unfortunately, instead of forming an OGP group, MMOX was defined as an
interop group expressly targetted at providing interop across many different
virtual worlds and MMO technologies.  The name of the group makes this
clear, and the original statements from both co-chairs endorse the broad
view even more vividly.

Clearly there is a disconnect between intent and presentation.

In this much wider VW context, OGP can at most be one input to the process,
and the end result of a successful workgroup would probably be nothing like
OGP even if it incorporated some of the good ideas from it.

This is the heart of the matter.  The Linden goal as you describe it above
is one thing, but the IETF group was set up with a totally different
declared intent.

I wonder if perhaps we could do both, and thus avoid the conflict:  separate
OGP and MMOX workgroups.  An OGP workgroup would be an excellent thing to
work on, and as an AWG member I would certainly like to help fill in the
parts that OGP has not yet defined.  But a MMOX group that targets the
broader reaches of VW interop is also highly worthwhile, and much more
visionary, and valuable to many more people.

Morgaine.

---

From: Jon Watte <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:51:05 -0800

Morgaine wrote:
> I wonder if perhaps we could do both, and thus avoid the conflict:  
> separate OGP and MMOX workgroups.  An OGP workgroup would be an 
> excellent thing to work on, and as an AWG member I would certainly 
> like to help fill in the parts that OGP has not yet defined.  But a 
> MMOX group that targets the broader reaches of VW interop is also 
> highly worthwhile, and much more visionary, and valuable to many more 
> people.

Why couldn't OGP stay in the AWG?

And assuming that's the split, then would the Second Life people still 
be interested in the broader interoperability?

Sincerely,

jw

---

From: Morgaine <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 02:43:45 +0000

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Jon Watte <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>  separate OGP and MMOX workgroups.  An OGP workgroup would be an excellent
>> thing to work on, and as an AWG member I would certainly like to help fill
>> in the parts that OGP has not yet defined.  But a MMOX group that targets
>> the broader reaches of VW interop is also highly worthwhile, and much more

It's not your place to deny Linden Lab the IETF standardization of their
protocols, assuming that two independent reference implementations can be
found.   The only problem is when it's done under false pretenses.

>
>
> And assuming that's the split, then would the Second Life people still be
> interested in the broader interoperability?

My belief is that yes, they would, because in addition to having people
focussed on improving their current technology, Linden Lab also has many
very forward-looking visionaries that can see beyond the current SL.  In any
case, MMOX was not formed by LL alone:  IBM has extremely broad VW
interests.

If you wish to suggest that those two goals can sometimes be in conflict
within LL, then you would be right.  But if you were to suggest that it's
either/or, then you would be wrong.

Morgaine.

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Jon Watte <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>  separate OGP and MMOX workgroups.  An OGP workgroup would be an excellent
>> thing to work on, and as an AWG member I would certainly like to help fill
>> in the parts that OGP has not yet defined.  But a MMOX group that targets
>> the broader reaches of VW interop is also highly worthwhile, and much more
> And assuming that's the split, then would the Second Life people still be
> interested in the broader interoperability?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> jw
>
>

---

From: Dan Olivares <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:57:05 -0500

Hey there

I'm interested in working on a solid virtual world interoperability
standard.   I admit, that if this splits up into 'awg' and a more
broad standard, I'll probably attempt to participate in both (though
my time is limited). And, in tern, end up implementing both.   In
truth, I don't think this is the best use of resources, however, it
may get over the 'stigma' of 'LL'.    However..  on the other side of
that token, I've never heard a company back down from building a
standard because other people think that they're 'big'.

I think that the comments by Lisa Dussealt apply here;
"A quick note on participation: individuals participate in the IETF,
not companies.  We have no official differentiation between somebody
who works for a company that may or may not benefit from
standardization or interoperability, somebody who is representing
another organization, and somebody who is acting as a private
individual entirely."

Lets not kill future development because of company affiliations.  I'm
sure if Google was the market leader and they had representatives
here, they wouldn't step out because other people in the proposed
working group were concerned about their influence.

My 2c

Daniel Olivares

---

From: Jon Watte <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:19:15 -0800

Morgaine wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Jon Watte <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>
> It's not your place to deny Linden Lab the IETF standardization of 
> their protocols, assuming that two independent reference 
> implementations can be found.   The only problem is when it's done 
> under false pretenses.

I think you're assuming some meaning I did not intend. It was an honest 
question: What could you do, with Second Life protocols, through a 
narrowly focused, Second Life centric IETF group, that you could not do, 
potentially faster and easier, in the AWG?

>
>  IBM has extremely broad VW interests.

I can't help but have noticed :-)

>  
> If you wish to suggest that those two goals can sometimes be in 
> conflict within LL, then you would be right.  But if you were to 
> suggest that it's either/or, then you would be wrong.

I am suggesting nothing; I am asking questions because I don't feel I 
have a good read on the situation, and I am honestly interested in the 
answers.

Sincerely,

jw

---

From: "Mark P. McCahill" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:15:55 -0500

Is it feasible to attempt to form two working groups?

Morgaine points out that there are essentially two camps in this  
mailing list - one focused on the AWG/OGP work and another interested  
in a broader vision for MMOX and suggests splitting the discussion.

David Levine has a strawman proposal for MMOX that is significantly  
different in intents and focus from the OGP proposal that was  
originally put forward for this group.

How are we going to reconcile this difference in approach?

On Feb 25, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Morgaine wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Infinity Meadhbh Hamrick <[email-masked] 
> > wrote:
>
> mmox mailing list) and potentially generate some RFCs from it seems  
> to have spawned a number of discussions. _all_ of the discussions  
> are interesting, but perhaps not all of them are germane to the  
> proposed task.
>
>
> I suspect that this is precisely the source of many of the problems  
> that have preoccupied MMOX discussions across many threads.  Giving  
> OGP the IETF treatment and generating some very useful RFCs is an  
> admirable cause, an extension of AWG work, and would greatly advance  
> interop between SL-like worlds.
>
> Unfortunately, instead of forming an OGP group, MMOX was defined as  
> an interop group expressly targetted at providing interop across  
> many different virtual worlds and MMO technologies.  The name of the  
> group makes this clear, and the original statements from both co- 
> chairs endorse the broad view even more vividly.
>
> In this much wider VW context, OGP can at most be one input to the  
> process, and the end result of a successful workgroup would probably  
> be nothing like OGP even if it incorporated some of the good ideas  
> from it.
>
> This is the heart of the matter.  The Linden goal as you describe it  
> above is one thing, but the IETF group was set up with a totally  
> different declared intent.
>
> highly worthwhile, and much more visionary, and valuable to many  
> more people.
>
>
> Morgaine.
>