Subject: [ogpx] VWRAP is going no where.

From: Carlo Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:22:20 +0100

The last message on this list was from 8 December
last year... one month of total silence. And even
that message was a "hey, is anything happening here?"

I'm worried that without communication HERE, there will
be no consensus, and without consensus we'll have nothing;
VWRAP would be a failure. I'd like to point out that
if anyone is working on something behind closed doors
somewhere, then that isn't helping much to make any deadlines,
since any progress would mean agreement about things
on THIS list.

-- 
Carlo Wood <[email-masked]>

---

From: Joshua Bell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 08:52:55 -0800

I'm aware of a fair amount of implementation work happening right now, and
Meadhbh is cranking on revisions to the LLSD/LLIDL draft. Yes, it's a bit
quiet here, but I'm not too disturbed; there's a lot of
writing/implementation to do to catch up to the state of discussions.

That said...

IETF77 is coming up in Anaheim, CA, USA on March 21-25. Sufficient interest
has been expressed offline for us to have a WG meeting, and it's time to
start thinking about an agenda for a session. I've been chatting offline
with some of the draft authors about topics, but others who are planning to
attend (physically or virtually) should start to think about what topics
might benefit from real-time communication.

Feel free to email me (or the list, of course) if you have a topic you're
thinking of presenting, and want some early feedback on whether it makes
sense for the agenda.

(And speaking of attending virtually, I'm planning to run some trials in
February to make sure we have the appropriate hardware and software for a
mixed reality session. Volunteers for implementing chat relays, etc, would
be appreciated.)

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 6:22 AM, Carlo Wood <[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>

---

From: Lawson English <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:30:48 -0700

Joshua Bell wrote:
> I'm aware of a fair amount of implementation work happening right now, 
> and Meadhbh is cranking on revisions to the LLSD/LLIDL draft. Yes, 
> it's a bit quiet here, but I'm not too disturbed; there's a lot of 
> IETF77 is coming up in Anaheim, CA, USA on March 21-25. Sufficient 
> interest has been expressed offline for us to have a WG meeting, and 
> it's time to start thinking about an agenda for a session. I've been 
> chatting offline with some of the draft authors about topics, but 
> others who are planning to attend (physically or virtually) should 
> start to think about what topics might benefit from real-time 
> communication.
>
> Feel free to email me (or the list, of course) if you have a topic 
> you're thinking of presenting, and want some early feedback on whether 
> it makes sense for the agenda.
>
> (And speaking of attending virtually, I'm planning to run some trials 
> in February to make sure we have the appropriate hardware and software 
> for a mixed reality session. Volunteers for implementing chat relays, 
> etc, would be appreciated.)

Y'all need to chat with the Metanomics/Science Friday folk. They have 
expressed interest in helping set up a mixed reality session for the 
IETF sessions along the lines of what they do for Metanomics and NPR's 
Science Friday and they have more experience than anyone else in SL (or 
in any other virtual world, I'm guessing) in doing that kind of thing.

Lawson

---

From: Morgaine <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 04:33:11 +0000

I found the lack of posts since December 8th to be completely normal.  It
was December after all --- a month dedicated to preparing for festivities,
attending them, and recovering from them.

To suggest that "VWRAP is going no where" is not correct, as long as some
people want it to go places.  Many people do, and are working towards it.

I do however support your statement 100% about the work being done behind
closed doors.

Working behind closed doors is not necessary, and it's deliberately
provocative and obstructive to the smooth operation of the working group.
It should not be done.

The group is here to work as a team.  Please let it do so, by involving it.
(Pointing at Lindens here.)

There still seems to be some remaining vestige of "let's do what we want and
get it rubberstamped", and it really needs to disappear.  It's not going to
get rubberstamped, and not involving the group throughout document
preparation just guarantees major dissent and wholesale rewrites.  I would
prefer a smoother, more collaborative approach.

This work should be done incrementally, agreeing ideas in advance within the
team, and only then writing them up once the basic details are well known.
Collaboration is much easier under those conditions.

Morgaine.

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

---

From: Vaughn Deluca <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 12:24:59 +0100

+1 Morgaine

Joshua wrote "Meadhbh is cranking on revisions to the LLSD/LLIDL draft".

Why not post some of these revisions here? We do not even need to have
extensive discussions on such unfinished drafts, [i am well aware of the
amount of time such interactions can take], but i would really appreciate an
opportunity to simply read them, to keep my thinking in sync with the latest
developments, since some major design and implementation work  seems to be
going on. It will save time in later discusions, and improve the quality of
the feedback that eventually will be given.

I am sorry to say, but this group is hardly taken serious at the moment.

--Vaughn

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 5:33 AM, Morgaine <[email-masked]>wrote:

> The group is here to work as a team.  Please let it do so, by involving
> it.  (Pointing at Lindens here.)
>
> There still seems to be some remaining vestige of "let's do what we want
> and get it rubberstamped", and it really needs to disappear.  It's not going
> to get rubberstamped, and not involving the group throughout document
> This work should be done incrementally, agreeing ideas in advance within
> the team, and only then writing them up once the basic details are well
> known.  Collaboration is much easier under those conditions.
>
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
>

---

From: Carlo Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 14:57:34 +0100

> I am sorry to say, but this group is hardly taken serious at the moment.

Surely you mean: "It seems that this group is hardly taken serious at
the moment" (by the Lindens that are working behind closed doors),
as opposed to that you are not taking it seriously?

Linden Lab is has been doing this as standard company policy: do
all the work without telling anyone, and then announce it wrapped
in a PR wrapping of "we're reading all your feedback", but in
practise ignoring that feedback. I'm sure I don't have to bullet
list when this happened in the past (and is still ongoing for xstreet
and the script limtis). The latest frustration that can be added to
this list is "viewer 2.0" about which every Linden (as part of
a company wide policy) refuses (is not allowed to) give out ANY
information, not even to the hard working snowglobe volunteers.
That this seriously obstructs the work on snowglobe doesn't
seem to be cared about.

So, it's with well-grounded suspicion that I see the same
thing happen here. No communication, everything behind closed
doors until it's FINISHED?!

This is not going to work I hope, since Linden Lab cannot
dictate to the rest of the world what the VWRAP standard
is going to be (or can they? After all, Microsoft recently did
the same with the document standard, despite many protests
and people even walking out).

So, Infinity, I call upon you: publish what you already wrote.
The first chapter, anything, so that we can start something
constructive.

In the past you wrote me sarcastic private emails in the line
of "Oh great Carlo, I'm looking forward to seeing your draft
posted on the net", while I can't remember having said anything
about writing a draft. You are though.

If I had the idea that a draft that I'd write would be accepted
I'd surely be working on it. But from where I'm standing that
seems just a waste of time. So, instead I'm waiting for the
Big Guys that have some weight after them to publish their thoughts
and then try get attention to the most horrific problems or
missing parts that I spot, hoping to get a discussion going
between the Big Guys about that point. I'm sure, by now, that
if it was only you and me, I'd be totally ignored :/

---

From: Vaughn Deluca <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 22:58:36 +0100

Carlo wrote:
"Surely you mean: "It seems that this group is hardly taken serious at
the moment" (by the Lindens that are working behind closed doors),
as opposed to that you are not taking it seriously?"

Absolutely!
English is my second language, and sometimes, when i am not paying enough
attention, stuff like this happens.

Well, we have made our point clear enough, let's see what happens...

--Vaughn, the dutchman  :)

---

From: Bill Windwalker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 06:00:13 -0800 (PST)

As of late there has been a number of errors i have been seeing.
not only in the assetserver but in voice and a number of other places.
i do not think this is the norm for whats going on.
avatar push bug, ghost prims, crashing do to packets out of order, scripts stopping, rotation scripts stop working and a large number of other odd but old bugs.
if i did not know any better i say some on has tap in to the linden lab server and has been poking at its software some how.
or there is a problem on the drives some place that store the data.
so i do think they have there hands full at this time and with the problems i am starting to see i can see why they do not have the time to say some thing in this group.
so in the end lets just hang in there.

---

From: Vaughn Deluca <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 15:51:08 +0100

Bill,

I would be surprised if your explanation for the lack of information here is
correct. In any case it is in direct contradiction with  Joshua's response.

But anyhow, i do not  think we have much options other than wait, (or we
would have to do the work ourselfs..). Personally i do not feel the time for
such drastic steps (starting to write our own drafts) is their yet.

Carlo is right, this is the standard mode of operating at LL,  its a shame,
and a waste of creative energy, but it seems to be the way it is. So indeed,
we just stomach the implicit insult to the group -- at least for a while --
 and hope for the best.

-- Vaughn

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Bill Windwalker <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> avatar push bug, ghost prims, crashing do to packets out of order, scripts
> stopping, rotation scripts stop working and a large number of other odd but
> old bugs.
> if i did not know any better i say some on has tap in to the linden lab
> server and has been poking at its software some how.
> so i do think they have there hands full at this time and with the problems
> i am starting to see i can see why they do not have the time to say some
> thing in this group.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 20:27:17 -0700

On 1/7/10 9:33 PM, Morgaine wrote:

> I do however support your statement 100% about the work being done
> behind closed doors.

Some working groups (and pre-WGs, as with IDNAbis) delegate a small
design team to make faster progress, and such a design team often works
via private conference calls and the like. However, as far as I know,
there is no design team for the VWRAP WG. Therefore, IMHO all the work
should happen in as open a fashion as possible. Now, no one expects a
document author to use some sort of collaborative editing software so
that everyone can help out in real time. On the other hand there is a
great deal of expertise on this list regarding virtual worlds and I
would expect the document author to be engaging the list in a dialogue
regarding open issues, thorny problems to be solved, etc., as a way to
make progress on submitting an Internet-Draft. Publish early, publish often.

My $0.02.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Morgaine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 06:18:10 +0000

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Joshua Bell <[email-masked]> wrote:

I'm aware of a fair amount of *implementation work* happening right now, and
> Meadhbh is *cranking on revisions to the LLSD/LLIDL draft*. Yes, it's a
> bit quiet here, but I'm not too disturbed; there's a lot of

Joshua, that answer just adds fuel to the worries.  Referring to the
highlighted sections:

1) *Implementation* of what?  In order to implement a protocol, one must
have a protocol to implement.  It is one of the worries in this group that
instead of working out in the group what the protocol needs to do, one or
two parties may be attempting to impose a de facto standard to override
group discussions.

2) Cranking out *revisions of LLSD/LLIDL* based on what discussions?  The
latest detailed discussions about LLSD/LLIDL were in MMOX.  What is being
revised?

Morgaine.

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

---

From: "Dickson, Mike (ISS Software)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:40:26 +0000

Having done a fair bit of standards work, I'd add this observation: it's also not uncommon for groups (corporations, etc) to do some prototype work along with a proposal for a protocol. In a best case scenarios there are multiple such proposals with real proof points in the implementation.  The "process" is then used to reconcile the various proposals down to the final standard.  Ideally this is done against and RFP that lists the requirements that must be met.

I'm hopeful that this is what's actually taking place (and encourage others with ideas about how things could be implemented: perhaps the OpenSIM community for example, to do something similar).  It would be a lot easier to debate the merits of a given approach with a prototype that demonstrates how it might function.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 9:27 PM
To: Morgaine; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ogpx] VWRAP is going no where.

> I do however support your statement 100% about the work being done 

Some working groups (and pre-WGs, as with IDNAbis) delegate a small design team to make faster progress, and such a design team often works via private conference calls and the like. However, as far as I know, there is no design team for the VWRAP WG. Therefore, IMHO all the work should happen in as open a fashion as possible. Now, no one expects a document author to use some sort of collaborative editing software so that everyone can help out in real time. On the other hand there is a great deal of expertise on this list regarding virtual worlds and I would expect the document author to be engaging the list in a dialogue regarding open issues, thorny problems to be solved, etc., as a way to make progress on submitting an Internet-Draft. Publish early, publish often.

My $0.02.

Peter

--
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Joshua Bell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 08:37:38 -0800

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Morgaine
<[email-masked]>wrote:

> I'm aware of a fair amount of *implementation work* happening right now,
>> and Meadhbh is *cranking on revisions to the LLSD/LLIDL draft*. Yes, it's
>> a bit quiet here, but I'm not too disturbed; there's a lot of

Implementing what's in the current drafts, and implementations in different
languages. The implementations used/shared previously targeted older drafts.

Also (as Mike points out later in the thread), prototype implementations are
input into the standards process, and should fuel discussion. They do not
magically generate consensus, although they may certainly influence it by
showing running code. That said, while I wish I was aware of some prototypes
of that nature, I'm not.

> latest detailed discussions about LLSD/LLIDL were in MMOX.  What is being

Meadhbh received feedback from several implementers in private communication
(including some internal at Linden), and some of the feedback from back in
the MMOX days still needs to be addressed. She's attempting to consolidate
that feedback into another draft ready for further feedback from the group
and prototype implementations.

The specifics I'm aware of are allowing for LLIDL to express unidirectional
messages and updates to the variant syntax. There were also some concerns
raised about loss of precision while round-tripping real values through
text-based serialization, but those were resolved without spec changes.

---

From: Joshua Bell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 08:47:37 -0800

> such drastic steps (starting to write our own drafts) is their yet.

If there was ever any implication that documents from other authors would
not be welcome, let me dispel that now: within the charter of the working
group, please please please contribute your thoughts and suggestions as
informally or formally as you see fit (within the auspices of the NOTE WELL
yadda yadda). Additional drafts from new authors are explicitly welcome.

(The caveat being that submitting a revision to another author's draft
without consent or discussion about hand-off is considered bad form, and
leads to extreme difficulties in tracking changes.)

The charter page http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/vwrap-charter provides a
roadmap of the expected pieces of the protocol, with completion dates for
some of them estimated as two years from now. No work has begun on many of
them, nor is it established that the list is sufficient for defining the
sort of interop VWRAP envisions.

There are also several chunks mentioned in the charter that are reasonably
independent of the others that could be tackled now with little dependency
on other work. I'd encourage list contributors to pick those up, either to
begin discussion or start documenting and providing sample implementations.

---

From: Morgaine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 21:51:45 +0000

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Joshua Bell <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
> Implementing *what's in the current drafts*, and implementations in
> different languages. The implementations used/shared previously targeted
> older drafts.
>
>
Well that's a problem, since what is in the *current drafts* reflects the
original OGP with its single-world, single-policy bias which has taken us so
long to overcome in this group.  Implementing the current drafts loses the
very good progress we had made with yourself concerning regions determining
region policy and providing another source of seed caps.  None of this is in
the current drafts.

We have made some good progress in VWRAP, particularly in September.  If
that progress is lost through implementing the original OGP then this
working group is back to square one.  That would be a shame.

>
>
>
> Meadhbh received feedback from several implementers *in private
> communication* (including some internal at Linden), and some of the
> feedback from back in the MMOX days still needs to be addressed. She's
> attempting to consolidate that feedback into another draft ready for further
> feedback from the group and prototype implementations.
>
You know how we feel about "*private communication*" being prioritized above
open VWRAP discussions.  It's not the way to go, as various people have
pointed out.  If a private communication provided some really useful
material, why is the new idea not presented to us here, so that it can be
examined by the group before a new draft spec is written?

Morgaine.

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Joshua Bell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 10:18 PM, Morgaine <[email-masked]
> > wrote:
>
>>> and Meadhbh is *cranking on revisions to the LLSD/LLIDL draft*. Yes,
> Also (as Mike points out later in the thread), prototype implementations
> are input into the standards process, and should fuel discussion. They do
> not magically generate consensus, although they may certainly influence it
> by showing running code. That said, while I wish I was aware of some
> prototypes of that nature, I'm not.
>
>
>
>
> Meadhbh received feedback from several implementers in private
> communication (including some internal at Linden), and some of the feedback
> from back in the MMOX days still needs to be addressed. She's attempting to
> consolidate that feedback into another draft ready for further feedback from
> the group and prototype implementations.
>

---

From: Morgaine <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:44:05 +0000

Joshua,

That would be necessary only if an author were unwilling to take the group's
suggested modifications into account when making new revisions.  That's not
the current position as far as I know.

IETF protocol work is not a war between competing drafts (or at least it's
not supposed to be).  It's intended to be a cooperative analysis of problems
and a group discussion of possible solutions, from which new and better
versions of protocol specs are honed.

To achieve quality teamwork requires that the authors of drafts take the
group's discussions into account when making new versions, otherwise the WG
is undermined.  When nothing is heard because documents are being updated
silently behind closed doors, its sends the wrong message, even if all is
well.  I recommend talking to the group while working on revisions, so that
changes are known to be on roughly the right track throughout the process.

*Traceability* is very important to avoid elements of progress being lost.
Before a new draft is issued, the areas of change really need to be
enumerated first so that it is easy to check that they have been addressed
in the new revision.  Pumping out new revisions without first agreeing on
what is being updated can look like teamwork avoidance, and makes the
group's efforts a lot more difficult.

I think we were on a very positive track in Q4 of last year, and it would be
sad to see a regression.

Morgaine.

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

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Joshua Bell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The charter page http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/vwrap-charter provides
> a roadmap of the expected pieces of the protocol, with completion dates for

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 23:34:11 -0500

> You know how we feel about "private communication" being prioritized above

It's often the case that the easiest way to present a draft revision
to the group is to revise the draft.  I suggest withholding judgment
about whether that's the right way in this case or not, and see what
the revision looks like.   Remember that draft *editors* for working
group documents remain answerable to the consensus of the working
group, so none of that work will remain mysterious for long, and if
the working group doesn't agree with some of the changes, those can be
changed again or rolled back.

It's common for working groups to bat things around for a while and
then get quiet, to perk up again only when a draft update is posted.
None of this worries me at this point.  Let's see what the next
versions of the updated drafts say.

That said, I, as well as Morgaine, would like to see *ideas* that are
raised elsewhere be brought to the mailing list for discussion.  Even
if an editor wants to work on text while that discussion happens,
that's fine.  A message that says, "Hey, someone came up with the
following idea in an offline conversation.  I'm working on
incorporating it into the document so you can all see it in its full
form, but while I'm working on that let's start some discussion here,"
would be a good one.

Barry, as chair