Subject: [ogpx] VWRAP Draft Charter - 2009-09-02

From: Joshua Bell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 13:15:38 -0700

One more iteration based on some constructive off-list feedback:

* Singular / plural disagreement has been fixed where noticed

* We removed the sentence fragment that included the word "exegesis" as
several people commented it seemed awkward. It was there to support the
concept that working on sample policies was "in scope"; we instead just
clarified the sentence.

* A handful of other minor edits to improve readability and avoid jargon.

..........

Working Group Name:

  Virtual World Region Agent Protocol (VWRAP)

Chairs:

  TBD

Area and Area Directors:

  Applications Area

  Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
  Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>

Responsible Area Director:

  TBD

Mailing List:

  [email-masked]
  http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx

Description of Working Group:

The working group will define  the Virtual World Region Agent Protocol
(VWRAP)  for a  collaborative 3-dimensional  virtual  environment. The
protocol permits  users to interact as  digital representations called
"avatars". An  avatar exists in at  most one location  within a shared
virtual  space. Conforming  client  applications use  the protocol  to
manipulate  and  move  the  user's  avatar,  create  virtual  objects,
interact with  other users and their surroundings,  consume and create
media and information from  sources inside and outside their simulated
environment.

A virtual  space can be  partitioned into "regions" to  facilitate the
computational  and communication load  balancing required  to simulate
the virtual environment.  A region provides the service environment in
which  inhabitants  and  objects  can  interact.   A  region  uniquely
represents a partition of the  virtual space; they are not a mechanism
for load  balancing by  having multiple instances  of the  same space.
Different regions may be  administered by different organizations. The
state of  a virtual  world is independent  of the  client applications
that access it and may persist between user sessions.

Within  a  VWRAP virtual  environment,  services  may  be deployed  by
multiple organizations having varying policies and trust domains.  The
VWRAP  protocol will  provide  the mechanisms  for  these services  to
interoperate, when permitted by policy. The working group may document
examples of policies applicable to a VWRAP environment.

Foundational components of the protocol include the publication of:

  * an abstract  type system, suitable for  describing the application
    protocol in an implementation neutral manner,

  * a   security   model   describing  trust   relationships   between
    participating entities,

  * guidelines   for   the   use   of  existing   authentication   and
    confidentiality mechanisms,

  * an application-layer  protocol for establishing  the user's avatar
    in a region,

  * an application-layer  protocol for changing  an avatar's position,
    including moving between regions,

  * format descriptions for objects and avatars, and

  * an  application-layer  protocol   for  identifying  entities,  and
    requesting information about them.

The protocol  defined by this  group will carry information  about the
virtual  environment, its  contents  and its  inhabitants.   It is  an
application layer protocol,  independent of transport, based partially
on these previously published internet drafts:

  * http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hamrick-ogp-intro
  * http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hamrick-llsd
  * http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hamrick-ogp-auth
  * http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hamrick-ogp-launch
  * http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lentczner-ogp-base
  * http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levine-ogp-clientcap
  * http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-levine-ogp-layering

The  protocol  should describe  interaction  semantics independent  of
transport,  leveraging existing standards  where practical.  It should
define interoperability expectations for server to server interactions
as  well  as  client-server   interactions.  Though  the  protocol  is
independent of  transport, early interoperability  trials used HTTP(S)
for  non-real-time messages.  The working  group will  define specific
features that must  be replicated in other transports  and will define
the use of HTTP(S) as a transport of protocol messages.

Goals and Milestones:

  * October  2009   "Introduction  and  Goals"  to  the   IESG  as  an
    Informational RFC

  * October 2009 "Abstract Type System for the Transmission of Dynamic
    Structured Data" to the IESG as Proposed Standard

  * October 2010 "Foundational Concepts and Transport Expectations" to
    the IESG as Proposed Standard

  * February 2010 "Guidelines for  Host Authentication" to the IESG as
    an Informational RFC

  * February  2010 "Service  Establishment"  to the  IESG as  Proposed
    Standard

  * February 2010  "Client Application Launch Message" to  the IESG as
    an Informational RFC

  * February 2010  "Simulation Presence Establishment" to  the IESG as
    Proposed Standard

  * June  2010  "Primitive Object  Format"  to  the  IESG as  Proposed
    Standard

  * June 2010 "Digital Asset Access" to the IESG as Proposed Standard

  * June 2010 "Entity Identifiers" to the IESG as Proposed standard

---

From: Suzy Deffeyes <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 18:40:27 -0400

+1

We are there. Charter looks good.
Suzy Deffeyes
IBM

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 2, 2009, at 4:15 PM, Joshua Bell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> * We removed the sentence fragment that included the word "exegesis"  
> as several people commented it seemed awkward. It was there to  
> support the concept that working on sample policies was "in scope";  
> we instead just clarified the sentence.
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx

---

From: Morgaine <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 02:05:06 +0100

I like this latest iteration, Joshua.

Some additional feedback follows, but this notwithstanding, I'm inclined to
give this charter a +1.

The Goals and Milestones have not actually been discussed in the group, and
therefore it is hard to state that there is any consensus on them.  As we
have been preoccupied with matters of scope and definition, that list of
proposed documents has escaped scrutiny.

Some of the document titles are not even usefully descriptive.  For
instance, "Service Establishment" could mean several things in our context,
and "Entity Identifiers" has very little meaning even to those of us with an
OGP background.

Also, I am uncertain of the significance of listing specific Goal or
Milestone documents in this WG *formation* charter.  We have only just
defined the scope of the group and have not yet examined the problem space
in detail, let alone the solution space.  How then can we know which
deliverables are relevant at this early stage, before we even know which
solutions we are describing?

Even if the list is not actually significant, if we are agreeing to move
forward with a charter that contains such a list then we should have a
reasonable understanding of what all the items cover.  A description appears
to be lacking at present.

If the Goals and Milestones actually *are* significant then of course this
matter becomes quite a lot more important and will need discussion.  The
dates I cannot comment upon, other than to say that they are premature given
that we haven't examined any protocols yet.

Morgaine.

=====================================

---

From: David W Levine <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 23:33:55 -0400

+1 Time to call this baked. 

Suzy Deffeyes <[email-masked]> 
Sent by: [email-masked]
09/02/2009 06:40 PM

To
Joshua Bell <[email-masked]>
cc
"[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Subject
Re: [ogpx] VWRAP Draft Charter - 2009-09-02

+1 

Sent from my iPhone

..........

Working Group Name:

Chairs:

  TBD

Area and Area Directors:

  Applications Area

  TBD

Mailing List:

  [email-masked]

 

Goals and Milestones:

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 22:14:30 -0400

Collecting the agreement on the previous iteration with the agreement
on this one, we appear to have rough consensus here, and to be ready
to send this version to the IESG.  I'm inclined to agree with Morgaine
that the milestone dates are aggressive, but this is a common issue
with new working groups, and it's something that can be tweaked during
the remainder of the chartering process.

As to the document titles in the milestones, they should also be
tweaked to refer, where they can, to the existing  list earlier in the
charter.  Some do now, but some vary from that (for instance,
draft-hamrick-ogp-intro has the title "Introduction and Requirements",
but the milestone says "Introduction  and  Goals"), and some seem to
have no correspondence.

The bullet list above that should also use the same names, where it
can, so that everything comes together.  It would be nice if this list
included a brief explanation of each of the documents for which
there's a milestone.

If we can clear that minor stuff up with yet one more version, then I
suggest we send that version to the App ADs and ask that they start
the chartering process.

Some procedural notes, for those who aren't sure:
Ultimately, it's the IESG -- all 15 Area Directors -- that decides
whether to charter the working group.  They will put out, on the IETF
announcement list, a copy of the charter, and call for comments n the
IETF discussion list ([email-masked]).  They will also put out "new
work" notices, calling for comments from other standards development
organizations (SDOs), such as OASIS and W3C.  That's usually a pro
forma thing, but sometimes other SDOs have useful comments, or can
point to overlapping work elsewhere.

When the input has been put in, they'll discuss it on an IESG telechat
and come to a decision.  Depending upon the telechat schedule and how
busy they are, a working group could be chartered in something like
six to ten weeks.

Barry (OGPX BOF chair)

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:47:28 +0100

>the remainder of the chartering process.
Or even after WG chartering: dates can be updated by talking directly to 
the responsible AD, i.e. they don't require full IESG review.

---

From: Kari Lippert <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:49:08 -0400

I agree that the two lists should be in at least loose agreement. I
also note that the Goals and Milestones section has not a part of a
Charter that I've been involved with. I assumed it was an artifact of
this standards body IETF and had been discussed. That being said, I
would propose these rewordings for the Goals and Milestones (having
used the wording from the bullets to rephrase):

Goals and Milestones:

   * October 2009 "Foundational Concepts and Transport Expectations" to
    the IESG as Proposed Standard

   * October 2010 "Abstract Type System" to the IESG as Proposed Standard

  * February 2010 "Security Model and Guidelines for  Host
Authentication" to the IESG as
    an Informational RFC

  * February 2010  "Simulation Presence  and Location Establishment"
to  the IESG as
    Proposed Standard

  * June 2010 "Digital Asset and Entity Access" to the IESG as Proposed Standard

Either way on the Goals and Milestones, I say +1

Kari

---

From: Infinity Linden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 07:29:58 -0700

hey kari. looks like your changes are just fixing some oversights we
made earlier, so i have no problems with any of them.

fwiw. some of us in stockhom discussed the list and were thinking of
putting a "trust model" section in foundations document, but that
didn't get captured on the list, so i'm happy someone was awake enough
to add a reference to it back in.

as for the digital asset and entity asset access being in the same
document. i have a gut feeling that both of these will grow to be
relatively large documents, and will get worked on separately. so +1
for pointing out that we have to work on both of them, but i think
ultimately we'll want them in separate documents.

-cheers
-meadhbh/infinity

---

From: Latif Khalifa <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 03:08:31 +0200

+1

Draft charter looks good