Subject: Re: [vwrap] Moving ahead with draft-ietf-vwrap-intro

From: Jon Freedman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 13:50:38 -0400

Hello Everyone,

I want to throw in my two pieces of abstract virtual world currency into the
mix. After perusing the vwrap-intro draft in depth, I have a few comments. I
realize that some of this may have been raised before in previous
discussions.

The overall document and standardization roadmap makes is great. The
technology and specifications laid out are generic enough that they should
be able to encompass many forms of virtual worlds and the applications which
inevitably evolve upon stable platforms. In my humble opinion the
requirement of HTTP/REST semantics and suggestion for the use of XMPP as a
messaging protocol are great to see.

On the surface, the draft supports multiple means of deploying a virtual
world. This ranges from local development environments to large
distributed/scalable grids. Everyone seems to agree that support of multiple
models is important, and I feel that this document does address that need.
My only concern in this area is highly related to my overall concern with
the document as it currently stands.

I am wondering if it acceptable for me to give the document a quick overall
pass to help improve some of the language use ? I realize this is a draft so
hopefully this is a good time for such endeavours. Many sections lack
clarity and multiple virtual world colloquialisms are used. Assuming there
are no issues, I will send a txt version of my edits to this list within a
few days.

Cheers,

-- 
Jonathan Freedman
President
Open Metaverse Foundation
+1 (514) 582-1533

-- 
Jonathan Freedman
President
Open Metaverse Foundation
+1 (514) 582-1533

---

From: Meadhbh Hamrick <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:56:44 -0700

to quote a famous footware company's ads: "just do it!"

please feel free to rewrite sections or just point out where you think
the language is improper or could be improved.

we _are_ trying to move this document along in the process, so sooner
is better than later.

i think we're hoping to have a document that reflects consensus, while
at the same time constrains the problem domain somewhat. so, i think
clarifying use cases or terminology would be readily welcomed.
proposing we rebuild the whole infrastructure will result in
quarrelsome quibbling. i'm guessing you're not proposing something so
radical, so go for it!

public comment and ideas for how to improve the specs are part of what
we're trying to do on this list.

-cheers
-meadhbh
--
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [email-masked]

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Jon Freedman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>

---

From: Dzonatas Sol <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 13:40:17 -0700

> realize that some of this may have been raised before in previous

One concern I see is if we do add such types to the standard then every 
related structure may have to be passed by transports that always assume 
a certain level of authentication and security. That would subsequently 
make stateless connections harder by default.

I agree if it is possible to do such then it would be great, but there 
would be practical consequences if the data can't dance. I think it 
should only be introduced as an optional extension where the connection 
is already stateful. That would at least help guarantee the general 
meaning of currency, yet I'm sure we could think of specific currencies 
that can have stateless transports. I have demonstrated one, so I 
wouldn't want to break that content. =)

-- 
--- https://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering, Virtual Reality, Consultant