[2009/02/10 9:49] Zha Ewry: So... I'm not planning on staying too long, as I'm prety de-foused form the RL viral replicators, but I owuld like to talk about a couple of things
[2009/02/10 9:52] Infinity Linden: we've got a query into the IETF as to whether group email membership is public or private
[2009/02/10 9:53] Infinity Linden: but the thing to remember, we haven't done an official call for participation yet
[2009/02/10 9:53] Morgaine Dinova: I haven't checked overnight, lemme see if any comments on latest draft
[2009/02/10 9:53] Zha Ewry: I've also been gently asked, if IETF participatoin requires a RL name
[2009/02/10 9:53] Infinity Linden: and MMOX is about more than just SL / OpenSim
[2009/02/10 9:54] Infinity Linden: yeah... for the peeps who participate in the AWG pseudonymously... there may be benefits to subscribing under your real name
[2009/02/10 9:56] Mirt Tenk: Dick Gabriel had a lot of free time
[2009/02/10 9:56] Zha Ewry: Anyway.. that's somehting it would be clever to have an actual IETF answer on..
[2009/02/10 9:57] Jonit Ivory: you cheered me up ty, been a long day of PHP
[2009/02/10 9:57] Infinity Linden: surprisingly... he did an aweful lot of stuff... wrote a lot of very good papers on software development, was an amateur musican, wrote a bunch of lisp code, and had time to argue with himself
[2009/02/10 9:57] Zha Ewry: So... two more bits of administrivia..
[2009/02/10 9:57] Saijanai Kuhn: I know that the IETF says that people are always present as individuals, not as representatives of a compnay
[2009/02/10 9:58] Zha Ewry: I'm planning on keeping this time slot as long as there is interest.. I'm looking to alternate with a meeting on one of the OpenSim grids sometime shortly, but I need to work out the logistics on that, so look for that info shortly
[2009/02/10 9:58] Infinity Linden: you don't need to file an IPR disclosure unless you have some IPR to disclose
[2009/02/10 10:00] Jonit Ivory: copacetic or copasetic (kp-stk)
adj.
Very satisfactory or acceptable; fine
[2009/02/10 10:00] Saijanai Kuhn: Copasetic is an unusual English language word in that it is one of the few words of seemingly unknown origin that is not considered slang in contemporary usage.
[2009/02/10 10:00] Zha Ewry: sigs (well, OK, is a very weak translatoin, copacetic, comes much closer to cool, happy, and harmonious than OK" )
[2009/02/10 10:00] Infinity Linden: lol. we're all looking at the wikipedia
[2009/02/10 10:00] Saijanai Kuhn: origins apear to be conversations with astronauts
[2009/02/10 10:00] Morgaine Dinova: Blimey, not rare to find a word I don't know, but rare to not find one I've never even heard before
[2009/02/10 10:03] Infinity Linden: i think the idea was that the IETF wants to maintain it's reputation, so unlike other standards bodies we won't name, they don't just rubber stamp proposals
[2009/02/10 10:03] Zha Ewry: the IETF expectatoin is we'll all act as intelligent, professoinals, seperate from our corporate afiliatoin
[2009/02/10 10:03] Morgaine Dinova: Infinity: I like that. Makes very little sense to have 32-bit ints in a high-level interface.
[2009/02/10 10:03] Infinity Linden: well.. considering that there's resistance to add LLSD as a standards track RFC, I don't see that there's any debate
[2009/02/10 10:03] Infinity Linden: LLSD (if an informational RFC) will have no 64 bit wide int
[2009/02/10 10:04] Infinity Linden: and with that... i have to go
[2009/02/10 10:04] Saijanai Kuhn: we had a nice late night/early morning discussion about LLSD
[2009/02/10 10:05] Zha Ewry: So. on logistics.. we have offers to do some form of RL/SL bridge for the actual BOF
[2009/02/10 10:05] Morgaine Dinova: Fair enough. Although I had no qualms about LLSD as long as we weren't held back by its definition inside LL.
[2009/02/10 10:05] Catherine Pfeffer: if informational, then LLSD remains SL stuff, not really a standard. That's fine too.
[2009/02/10 10:05] Zha Ewry: Probably something akin to the Metanomics chat bridge
[2009/02/10 10:05] Saijanai Kuhn: possibly multi-region if there's enough attendance
[2009/02/10 10:06] Morgaine Dinova: And Rob seemed to indicate that there would be no trouble redefining LLSD if we needed to. So I'm not pressing for LLSD to disappear, although I would support replacing "LL" by OG or VW or something generic.
[2009/02/10 10:06] Saijanai Kuhn: Bjorlyn and Bevan are both interested in the idea and think Beyers will be as well
[2009/02/10 10:06] Jonit Ivory: is someone actually going to RFC LLSD with IETF?
[2009/02/10 10:06] Zha Ewry: With voice likely, and maybe video
[2009/02/10 10:06] Morgaine Dinova: LL is yes, it's been made an MMOX milestone
[2009/02/10 10:07] Jonit Ivory: who's driving it? just Zero at LL or are you Zha in on it?
[2009/02/10 10:07] Morgaine Dinova: I removed the milestone about simulators last night from the draft, since worlds may not have a simulator like LL uses. Lemme see if I got any comments.
[2009/02/10 10:07] Catherine Pfeffer: If it's not on the track for a RFC, then my arguments about LLSD having competitors in the same niche don't stand.
[2009/02/10 10:08] Zha Ewry: I'm supportive of getting *something* about LLSD or similar on the IETF table
[2009/02/10 10:10] Morgaine Dinova: Well it's informative published as an RFC by LL. But in making it part of the MMOX protocol, it will become normative.
[2009/02/10 10:10] Jonit Ivory: what do IETF want? more specifics?
[2009/02/10 10:10] Pixel Gausman: Jonit: the IETF has it's first meeting on MMOX in march.
[2009/02/10 10:10] Zha Ewry: Well, the world *needs* more XMLish serializatoins formats, becuase, we only have a few hundred at the moment
[2009/02/10 10:10] Catherine Pfeffer: infinity did not give the reasons for this reluctance
[2009/02/10 10:11] Pixel Gausman: Zha: yeah, that was a D'oh! moment
[2009/02/10 10:12] Saijanai Kuhn: Well the acronym has a cute pronuciation is apparently the rationale
[2009/02/10 10:12] Zha Ewry: The OpenSIm community certainly has opinions
[2009/02/10 10:12] Zha Ewry: I've had some chats with people, such as Teravus, but to be honest, its an XML based simple mapping, I can't get too worked up about it
[2009/02/10 10:13] Zha Ewry: It isn't deeply efficient, but nothing tha pays the angle bracket tax is
[2009/02/10 10:13] Zha Ewry: It isn't very complex and it works
[2009/02/10 10:13] Jonit Ivory: LL are attemting to bed teh IETF to leave "open" solutions in the cold?
[2009/02/10 10:13] Rex Cronon: wow. llsd isn't very complex:)
[2009/02/10 10:14] Zha Ewry: Its a PITA to parse in a few spots, but *everything* that pays the anglle bracket tax isn't wonderful to parse
[2009/02/10 10:14] Saijanai Kuhn: so far no-one has pointed to a simpler solution
[2009/02/10 10:14] Pixel Gausman: Zha: i think it's important that the OpenSim devs get interested and involved in the standard. The LLSD thing seems to be a sticky point for them
[2009/02/10 10:14] Zha Ewry: Ideally, in the form of "Here's how it oculd be done better"
[2009/02/10 10:14] Morgaine Dinova: Well we tried to come up with a less complex alternative to LLSD+LLIDL last night from among the existing standards, and we couldn't. They're all more complex. So I think we have a reasonable starting candidate.
[2009/02/10 10:15] Catherine Pfeffer: yes, simplicity is one of its major forces
[2009/02/10 10:15] Zha Ewry: At the XML+LLSD serializatoin level, how complex is LLSD?
[2009/02/10 10:15] Imaze Rhiano: what about other parts: messages and application level objects?
[2009/02/10 10:16] Pixel Gausman: Morgaine: i dunno. i cant articulate their issues with it very well, i just know they are there, and very real
[2009/02/10 10:16] Catherine Pfeffer: it would be good to have feedback, because we're only speculating
[2009/02/10 10:17] Morgaine Dinova: Well so far everyone's contributions to MMOX have been reasoned, don't think anyone's tried to push a "Get rid of it coz I don't like it" through.
[2009/02/10 10:17] Saijanai Kuhn: it lacks some things, I believe. Zero's indicated he's aware that "binary blobs" aren't handled properly by LLIDL
[2009/02/10 10:17] Pixel Gausman: so they dont think enough of MMOX or AWG to be here articulating that... so that tells us something
[2009/02/10 10:18] Saijanai Kuhn: jhurliman: and what better place to talk about an open virtual world architecture than a walled garden world
[2009/02/10 10:18] Saijanai Kuhn: response to announcement of groupies meeting on MMOX
[2009/02/10 10:19] Zha Ewry: The chalange, is that a bunch of the OpenSIm community view standards as "Only going to slow down coding"
[2009/02/10 10:20] Zha Ewry: which of course, isn't entirely wrong
[2009/02/10 10:20] Pixel Gausman: interop between OpenSim and SL seems like it would be easier than SL and any other platform.
[2009/02/10 10:20] Morgaine Dinova: Opensim is mega-important to MMOX as it's the only foil to SL we have currently.
[2009/02/10 10:20] Pixel Gausman: Morgaine: so how do we convince THEM that they need to spend time/resource on MMOX?
[2009/02/10 10:21] Pixel Gausman: OpenSim devs are quietly coding away
[2009/02/10 10:21] Morgaine Dinova: I think they've been convinced, else they wouldn't have appeared in MMOX. John's appeared twice now and had very strong (nearly violent) comments
[2009/02/10 10:23] Zha Ewry: and have very concrete things to focus on
[2009/02/10 10:24] Zha Ewry: The best feedback, has been on things like LLSD
[2009/02/10 10:24] Zha Ewry: where there are clear things people care about
[2009/02/10 10:24] Zha Ewry: (Mind you, it's all been *negative* feedback)
[2009/02/10 10:25] Zha Ewry: I'm not deeply excited by feedback in the form of "X is bad" without a "Y would be better"
[2009/02/10 10:25] Dahlia Trimble: it would be helpful to have the LLâ protocols in some form of standard rather than having to "reverse engineer" them
[2009/02/10 10:25] Pixel Gausman: we cant force them to give feedback, they have to see value in what is being done in MMOX
[2009/02/10 10:25] Morgaine Dinova: Zha: in our IM discussions over the last 48h, I've been coming around to knocking up noddy test worlds that implement the MMOX protocols simplistically (maybe using PyOGP to poke them). That's the kind of practical thing that the Opensim might relate to better, being nose-ground coding.
[2009/02/10 10:25] blotto Epsilon: is LL going to provide a mmox test grid that opensim devs can do interop experiments with? seem that would get their attention.
[2009/02/10 10:26] Pixel Gausman: oh, prolly aditi again
[2009/02/10 10:26] Morgaine Dinova: blotto -- I'm not sure if that would be a good thing or a bad one. Relations are already slightly strained in trying to make things "VW" rather then "SL"
[2009/02/10 10:26] Pixel Gausman: but i know nuthing
[2009/02/10 10:26] Rex Cronon: i don't think that ietf is going to accept only code proposals:)
[2009/02/10 10:27] Morgaine Dinova: Yeah, Aditi is likely to go MMOX
[2009/02/10 10:27] Saijanai Kuhn: well, once there's an independent AD, we can bypass aditi and gridnauts when we want
[2009/02/10 10:27] Jonit Ivory: LL are so monopolistic, it is not at all helpful
[2009/02/10 10:31] Morgaine Dinova: This particular case isn't a hard one, it's prototype code, no legal liability. Just be sure you've not included any IBM secrets and you're done
[2009/02/10 10:31] Zha Ewry: And we're comfortable with it
[2009/02/10 10:31] Pixel Gausman: snickers at Morgaine
[2009/02/10 10:32] Zha Ewry: is pretty sure she hasn't encoded any deep secrets in the code
[2009/02/10 10:32] Saijanai Kuhn: marvels at meeting a bigger idealist than himself
[2009/02/10 10:33] Zha Ewry: And when I shake this persistent cold, I'm going to push a new copy out which fixes that and actually keeps UUIDs of agents persistent within a single running of it
[2009/02/10 10:34] Zha Ewry: So, We'll try meeting on OpenSIm space, to see if that gets any OpenSIm people to show, and If people want to try an all IRC discussoin, I'm game for that too
[2009/02/10 10:35] Saijanai Kuhn: OPenSim uses their wright plaza IRC bot. We should whip something up like that for your sim, Zha, at least for Groupies time
[2009/02/10 10:35] Morgaine Dinova: Is it possible to the Opensim meeting set up as Office Hours so that we see it in the OH HUD?