[8:56] Latha Serevi: Morgaine, if you make the IRC relay "buy original for L$0" then it's turn-offable by someone else. That's what I suggest if we leave the premises with the microphone on. :-)
[8:56] Morgaine Dinova: Woohoo, sound! (/me hates the damn flash)
[8:57] Morgaine Dinova: Latha, please pick it up and put another down --- I only stuck one down because when I was testing from another region, it disabled the old one :-(
[8:57] Latha Serevi: You're the only one who can pick this one up; see my suggestion above. :-)
[9:37] Zha Ewry: Sorry I'm running late, you can blame the blue Kitty
[9:37] LathaSerevi: I: suggest that we submit to the iron fist of Fearless Leader (Zha) in order to stay focused today.
[9:37] Morgaine Dinova: It's OK, this kittie has blue armour underneath ;-)
[9:37] Zha Ewry: looks in her inventory for "Fist, Iron"
[9:37] Teravus Ousley: Hey Zha, I detailed a few technical nit picky items that need to be fixed on the draft.. and, suggested that using the word eXperience might dictate that certain statements may need to be changed slightly.
[9:42] Teravus Ousley: heh heh, a normative reference for DOMINATION... *checks the draft for use of that word*
[9:42] Teravus Ousley: no... I guess that's just in there for jokes?
[9:43] Morgaine Dinova: Darkstar would be good. I guess anyone could just knock off an email to them. It's not as if there were a formal procedure to be followed :P
[9:43] Teravus Ousley: oh wait.. that's an Informative Reference
[9:44] Rex Cronon: darkstar is also related to wonderland and i finding even stranger that sun is not interested:)
[9:44] Morgaine Dinova: Mind you, the big puzzling thing is why Qwaq isn't on MMOX, seeing as they were extremely interested in interop at the meeting.
[9:44] Zha Ewry: Yes, anyone who has comments about the "problem/scope" statement is welcome to raise them.. I actually had a subtly different agenda item as well
[9:44] Zha Ewry: (and Mark Cahill is on, and he is that community)
[9:45] Rex Cronon: did ll do a press releas about mmox? maybe more people would get interested
[9:46] Zha Ewry: So.. I finally sorted out in my head, what Jon Watte's on about.. and wanted to talk about that, degrees of interop, and some oddities I've noticed people assuming, or quasi assuming the past few weeks
[9:47] Zha Ewry: And.. finally, there is this interestign tension, between the boring grunt work of doing some things which are less broad, vs the bigger space
[9:50] Meadhbh Oh: right. even in the HTTP world, we get different clients that ignore bits of teh HTTP spec
[9:50] Meadhbh Oh: and just don't offer all the services
[9:50] Zha Ewry: Jon first, then uber client, and related oddities
[9:50] Teravus Ousley: .. one reason why the Uber Client is unrealistic.. is because there hasn't been enough research into the 3D space and what sort of interactions and interfaces work well with it.
[9:51] Rex Cronon: i guess the sl viewer is an "uber client". hmm:)
[9:52] Zha Ewry: "Look, all these worlds are too different to merge at the client/sim interaction level, so don't bother, we can do it all at the sim-sim level"
[9:52] Meadhbh Oh: mmm.. i don't see that's what he's on about
[9:52] Zha Ewry: Which.. is.. an interesting perspective, and has some huge problems hiding in it
[9:53] Meadhbh Oh: i think it's more.... "i like the interaction model where there's a consentual reality shared by all viewers, generated by viewers"
[9:53] Morgaine Dinova: The SL viewer is open source, so it'll be as open as people decide to make it. It's already the common denominator between SL and Opensim, and they're diverging, while the viewer will continue to interoperate with both.
[9:53] Meadhbh Oh: OLIVE(tm) doesn't connect to other worlds, though
[9:53] Meadhbh Oh: and he's already mentioned it will never connect to SL or OpenSom
[9:54] Zha Ewry: Not at the client/sim level he's not as sure at the sim-sim level.. which is sort of an interesting perspective
[9:54] Morgaine Dinova: Jon says that his users on OLIVE want interop, so that's what he's working to give them. Interop with who is unstated, but my guess is, with anyone who runs MMOX protocols.
[9:54] Zha Ewry: Let me try and quickly sumarize my understanding of how he might do it
[9:54] Meadhbh Oh: and honestly, i am VERY surprised he submitted LESS, as it sort of implies they're ceding aspects of their IPR
[9:56] Morgaine Dinova: Nor is it relevant whether I have worked with Forterra people. It's not us and them in MMOX.
[9:56] Zha Ewry: So, not quite gateways, but close
[9:57] Zha Ewry: and that's got all sorts of hair lurking in it
[9:57] SharedRealm Engineer: more like reverse-proxies that translate different VW objects
[9:57] Meadhbh Oh: yeah. internally i'm constantly fighting the perception that forterra is in MMOX exclusively to F*** it up
[9:57] Zha Ewry: So, he'd say, "So, if we want to share this meeting space, between OLIVE and SL, we'd create a "shared context" and one sim would pass on to the other the things which it is managing"
[9:58] Meadhbh Oh: great. sounds great. more power to them
[9:58] Zha Ewry: Which gets wicked ugly, if you want 10 sets of clients
[10:00] Meadhbh Oh: great. they should propose a charter and a working group for it
[10:00] Morgaine Dinova: I pointed out to his that OLIVE doesn't scale if all nodes have to simulate all worlds, and he agreed. But his only escape from non-scalability is by not accepting world diversity, so that all nodes can do the same simulation. He's grudgingly accepting that. But it makes OLIVE a small subset of the VW space, which deals with simulation diversity.
[10:00] Zha Ewry: So... I'm going to try and write up the "co-simulation" idea, and some problems in it
[10:01] Zha Ewry: to get on the list, so people will have a clue about that cornero f things
[10:01] Zha Ewry: and.. what I find interesting, is that I could express the content I'd flow across that
[10:01] Meadhbh Oh: but what does it have to do with the current work of the BoF?
[10:01] Zha Ewry: connection, in the same streaming formet I'd abstractly use to talk sim-> any observer
[10:04] Meadhbh Oh: right. so the stuff we're talking about WRT to interop with forterra should probably happen outside the IETF, then when there's something resembling a wire protocol, we go back
[10:04] Zha Ewry: The goal of this BOF, and (most likely the severalm onths to the next BOF) is to get a good charter which is supported by enough people in the WG and the IETF that
[10:04] Zha Ewry: the IESG and IAB and IETF wise heads will say "Yeah, verrily, go forth and see if you can get a draft RFC or three into the pipelien"
[10:08] LathaSerevi: I: understand the goal of a BOF meeting to be to demonstrate a consensus that: there is a problem that needs solving, the scope of the problem is well defined and understood,
[10:08] LathaSerevi: there: are people to do the work, and the specific proposed deliverables are the right set.
[10:08] Morgaine Dinova: I don't understand the comment about Forterra "playing like an adult". Jon has submitted an Internet draft. That's precisely what the IETF requires at this point in the process.
[10:08] LathaSerevi: Seems: like Jon is doing that, but Meadhbh doesn't want to.
[10:08] Zha Ewry: I want to touch on two other quick issues,a dn then dive into this discussion a bit deeper
[10:08] Zha Ewry: (Forterra, was exceedingly non constructive at the last pass at this Morgaine)
[10:09] Zha Ewry: Jon's been much more engaged, and to my eye, less difficult, this time around, but.. there are some rather unhappy people all around from the VWIF joyride a year and change ago
[10:09] Meadhbh Oh: Latha, um... i did actually submit a draft (or two)
[10:09] Zha Ewry: My count, is we have 4 or 5 formal documents
[10:09] LathaSerevi: We: have a dramatic non-consensus that the current set of proposed deliverables are the right set. If Meadhbh keeps insisting that her drafts are the only correct set, withou
[10:09] LathaSerevi: t: justifying that, the BOF will go down in flames.
[10:10] sensory Hax: saluta tutti scusate una cosa urgente spero in un post
[10:10] [[User:xsensory Hax[it>en]|xsensory Hax[it>en]]]: / me salutes all scusate something urgent I hope for a post
[10:10] Zha Ewry: There was a critique, was that submitted as an IETF input?
[10:10] Morgaine Dinova: I'm not party to Forterra's previous previous actions. On the current one, Jon is acting properly, and that's all that matters to MMOX. Don't bear a grudge.
[10:10] Meadhbh Oh: FWIW... our intention is to submit LLSD, OGP/Base, OGP/Auth and OGP/Teleport
[10:11] Zha Ewry: So.. by IETF rules, anything not there today, is not up for deep discussion at the BOF. ANything in by March 2nd, is assumed to have been read by attendees
[10:13] Meadhbh Oh: if it for any reason can't be considered "official input"
[10:13] Zha Ewry: Which we've mostly covered in passing..
[10:13] Zha Ewry: Which would be the one client, which could connect to all the VWs out there
[10:13] Zha Ewry: Which, tends to be postulated by people who try to think of this as web pages, needing simple plugins
[10:14] Morgaine Dinova: All "IETF Contributions" are considered "official input". I can paste the paragraphs from the appropriate IETF docs if you want.,
[10:14] Zha Ewry: I think it's pretty unlikely in this decade we'll see anything close to one
[10:14] Meadhbh Oh: @morgaine. that's actually not entirely true
[10:14] Zha Ewry: The issue, tho, is that, at a face to face any material you want to formally consider needs to be on the IETF draft repository
[10:14] Zha Ewry: 3 weeks prior to the start of the meeting
[10:14] Zha Ewry: To give people time to read and digest
[10:15] Zha Ewry: Which is to say, anything we want to talk about, we can
[10:15] Zha Ewry: We can expect people will have actualyl read those documents and be prepared to discuss them
[10:15] Meadhbh Oh: when there's time i'll tell you the story of how RSA (my former employer) abused the internet draft system
[10:15] Rex Cronon: such a client might be possible using addons:)
[10:15] Dahlia Trimble: aren't there commercial interests developing "uber clients" now? I thought I remember seeing references to a few in some recent group chat
[10:15] Zha Ewry: Well, for small overlapping sets of spaces, maybe
[10:17] Rex Cronon: i don't think is possible to have one client that connects to all VWs at the same time
[10:17] Morgaine Dinova: Difficult, but not impossible, Zha. After all, web browsers connect to "everything". That's not possible to do with Jon's OLIVE model, because he does simulation in all clients. But it's very possible in the SL/Opensim model, since simulation is left to the regions, and the clients only get telemetry back.
[10:17] Zha Ewry: Torque uses a totally different client side avaatr scheme, as does, last I look IMVUU
[10:17] Meadhbh Oh: but i would argue is different 'cause the web browser isn't a protocol endpoint for the games being played
[10:18] Zha Ewry: and they only show you what you have plugins for
[10:18] Zha Ewry: which mostly works, because, worst case, you can pipe the pile of bits to a process and let it handle it
[10:19] Morgaine Dinova: All that generic clients will need to support if a diversity of object standards, and in principle the set can be quite dynamic, with worlds making the extensions available on demand. Hard, but not impossible.
[10:19] Zha Ewry: (Note the more you do AJAX like stuff, the less it works everywhere)
[10:20] Dahlia Trimble: it may have been a glorified glintercept or something
[10:20] Zha Ewry: And.. what Linden has proposed here.. which is one part of interop, is to do interop in a set of broadly similar spaces which share an overall client approach
[10:20] Meadhbh Oh: right. my point is the browser doesn't need to understand the model for the plugin's data
[10:21] Zha Ewry: The problem with the "plugin model" for VWs, is things like "Do I need a plugin to handle inventory in 5 different worlds" as well as ones to render it
[10:21] Morgaine Dinova: Also, note that Limited Capability Clients can be multiple world clients easily, since they need compatibility across only a small part of the feature set. Eg. there's no reason at all why a screenless Braille client shouldn't connect to a dozen worlds, for text-to-Braille only.
[10:21] Zha Ewry: Which Jon didn't like at all Morgaine ;-)
[10:22] Meadhbh Oh: so yeah. in that sense jon is correct. we assume a few things about the virtual world... that machines that do simulation may not be the machines that have authority over the data used as inputs into the simulation
[10:22] Meadhbh Oh: and for the near term, yes, we are going to assume that all virtual worlds will want to consider the option of teleporting
[10:22] Morgaine Dinova: Not surprised he didn't like it. I'm trying to tread a middle line. :-)
[10:22] Zha Ewry: Actually, Meadhbh, I'd say it differently
[10:23] Zha Ewry: "For now we're going to assume there is value in doing a set of worlds which share a lot of common modeling, such as teleport"
[10:23] SharedRealm Engineer: is one of the goals of MMOX to define the client<->sim protocol?
[10:25] Meadhbh Oh: ugh. "state injector" is, i believe, a forterra trademarked term
[10:25] Zha Ewry: Because that lets you tease away all the current implementtaion couplling and look at the services you need
[10:25] SharedRealm Engineer: then you only need one client to connect to all the interop. VWs.
[10:25] Teravus Ousley: Additionally, current web clients have some standard controls and interactions... hyperlinks, forms.. submit buttons.. these are all researched as some of the most effective ways to get input from users. And, users have been conditioned to know what they mean.. in the 3D space, we don't have those sets of standards.
[10:25] Zha Ewry: You have to be kidding me Meadbh
[10:25] Zha Ewry: "State" has been "injected" into simulations for decades
[10:26] Teravus Ousley: .. and therefore, we can't say.. in the 3D wire protocol.. we need a 'touch' action on this object.. and a 'web browser' represented on this face.. and..
[10:26] Meadhbh Oh: i might argue that web forms weren't really researched
[10:27] Meadhbh Oh: and people know what they mean... what do the UCE peeps call em? affordances?
[10:27] Zha Ewry: right, and in fact, the reason I tend to seperate state injection from the rest
[10:27] Teravus Ousley: We're in the 'flash interface' state of the 3D space. Flash interfaces are often looked down upon in the 2d Design space because they're non-standard.
[10:27] Zha Ewry: is that.. they are lessunderstood
[10:28] Meadhbh Oh: definitely doesn't want to get in another argument about the differences between affordances and artificies
[10:28] Morgaine Dinova: Tera: we're treading new ground in the interop space, so hard to judge. But people like common clients, because they're used to web browsers. So my guess is that the open source community will head in that direction, and in due course, that will cause massive convergence.
[10:28] Zha Ewry: works *very* closely with our User Centered Design team
[10:34] Zha Ewry: I just mention this, because, its the lead in to my last topic, before we deep dive
[10:34] Infinity Linden: after the name calling... it would be nice to get something / anything that we could work on together
[10:35] Zha Ewry: Beyond persistence, the whole OGP spec set, not surprisingly for its history, is sort of riddled, softly, with assumptions about how the world is composed. They are mostly valid, they tend to be expressed in very specific, and specliazed names,a nd can obscure what we're really talking about
[10:35] Zha Ewry: Jon, was taking way to much about "rez_avatar/request" as being only for injecting an avatar
[10:35] Meadhbh Oh: yup. but. OGP was designed with web access in mind
[10:35] Zha Ewry: when.. in fact, you could get the set of caps from a sim, and then use them differently
[10:36] Meadhbh Oh: or at least we added a few bits that only make sense from a web access perspective
[10:36] Teravus Ousley: Are you comparing OGP language to that of Jon's comment about the 'language of forterra' last week?
[10:36] Morgaine Dinova: Another built-in assumption seems to be the point of authority for objects, which is very server-centric in our proposed models so far. Not sure how to tackle that, but certainly we don't want to build too many architectural assumptions in.
[10:37] Zha Ewry: Just observing that one thing we (and this is thw AWGroupies, OpenSimers, and Lindens, and all of us who have been soaking in this brine for several years)
[10:37] Morgaine Dinova: We had a good discussion with Jesrad about that.
[10:37] Meadhbh Oh: yes. OGP is a server centric protocol
[10:37] Meadhbh Oh: but there is nothing in the protocol that mandates you talk to "a simulator"
[10:37] Zha Ewry: tend to do, id focus on a very speciric set of terms, because they are useful, but, in fact, they are one factoring of the services
[10:37] Morgaine Dinova: Only if you make it one. OGP is based on endpoints, which are more flexible than SL.
[10:38] Zha Ewry: So, you may recall, 12 months ago, when Zero puhed on Agent Domain as having seperate endpoints for some services
[10:38] Teravus Ousley: Ah, to summarize, "Think outside the box"?
[10:38] Meadhbh Oh: fwiw... there's a reason OGP is server centric. both LL and OpenSim are server-centric
[10:38] Rex Cronon: u could assume that eventually all VW will have their users store personal data locally:)
[10:38] Zha Ewry: My point, is that, with no loss of function, and a big gain in comprehensino, we could make that more clear
[10:38] Meadhbh Oh: right. but do you really want everyone in a virtual area to be hammering on your DSL uplink like that?
[10:38] Morgaine Dinova: And it's that SL+Opensim-only thing that MMOX is there to remove. That's the whole idea of MMOX, to go beyond the first model.
[10:38] Zha Ewry: "This is the set of steps used to get access to a virtual space simulator"
[10:39] Zha Ewry: its the same as "Thsi is how you do a rez_avatar/request"
[10:39] Meadhbh Oh: a LOT of networks (especially ones that are offered to home users) are asymmetric in terms of direction
[10:39] Rex Cronon: that data could be uploaded to the sim u login
[10:39] Rex Cronon: similar to the new way textures r supposed to work:)
[10:39] Meadhbh Oh: which is one of the reasons LL's solutions are server centric
[10:40] Meadhbh Oh: (cause remember... Infinity and I come from the Smalltalk / Squeak / Croquet world)
[10:40] Teravus Ousley: No, we don't really want to hammer a DSL uplink, however.. we will right for your right to do that if you want to ! .. by making the definition generic enough that you can use whatever quality network you desire.
[10:40] Meadhbh Oh: (there had to have been a number of good reasons to move us away from the distributed t-object model)
[10:40] Zha Ewry: Note, tho, if you get the model clean, the easiest way to do this, is to have your assets stored in a local asset server, and have an interop level relationship between *that* (not the client) and the sim
[10:41] Zha Ewry: If your assets are all cleanly referred to with URIs
[10:41] Zha Ewry: and you are willing to host an asset server?
[10:41] Rex Cronon: a user could possible rent a webspace to store his/hers own data, so no need to hammer the poor dsl:)
[10:41] Zha Ewry: (and buy a fat pipe from your ISP)
[10:41] Morgaine Dinova: Tera: indeed. There's no reason why a noddy PC world on DSL can't support huge crowds .... if there's a suitable commercial big-iron caching proxy in front, as a paid service. ;-)
[10:41] Meadhbh Oh: i think including that in the client <-> server protocol is not a bag of win
[10:43] Zha Ewry: we have two or three things we'd like to manage
[10:43] Zha Ewry: I for one, (and my corporate masters)
[10:43] Meadhbh Oh: i think my point was... "we don't need to add proxy and cache managemetn to the viewer <-> server protocol"
[10:43] Rex Cronon: the user just needs to provide an address of where the data is located:)
[10:43] Zha Ewry: want to see OGP like stuff advanced, in as public a square as possible
[10:44] Zha Ewry: Growing out the ecosystem which is developing around second life, is, pretty much a good thing
[10:44] Meadhbh Oh: in fact... i would argue that giving viewer "a" the ability to say "okay... take object 1 from viewer "b"s machine and put it on server Z" is a mistake
[10:44] Rex Cronon: u could say that the user send the data location as part of the connection protocol:)
[10:44] Zha Ewry: (and growing it out in a way that has standards, and a decent decomposition, and such is a good thing)
[10:45] Meadhbh Oh: likes the idea of having all viewers participating in the consentual hallucination talking to a limited number of high-bandwidth servers
[10:45] Zha Ewry: Well, if server Z offers up a cap to store Item X, the user can always push it here
[10:45] Zha Ewry: (one of the nice things is that becomes a policy, not a protocol question)
[10:45] Zha Ewry: and that was the last thing I wanted to talk about before the deep dive
[10:45] Meadhbh Oh: and then having those servers have different agreements with each of the clients in terms of how they manage pulling authoratative data from them
[10:46] Morgaine Dinova: There's plenty of precedent for service redirection. Redirection for resources is perfectly mainstream for REST. :-)
[10:46] Rex Cronon: isn't a policy part of the protocol?
[10:46] Zha Ewry: I made an I think slightly controversial, but very important comment, in the scope/problem writeup I posted
[10:47] Meadhbh Oh: it describes mechanisms to connect
[10:47] Zha Ewry: so, that various deployers/users of the protocol can then have policies
[10:47] Morgaine Dinova: We're defining only mechanisms, not policy. If a VW provider has a policy of not supporting asset redirection, that's its business. But it's certainly par for the course for the mechanism to allow it.
[10:56] Zha Ewry: Couple of things which I think would help
[10:57] Zha Ewry: one.. we need to both set the scope broadly enough, in the preface of the charter, and then justify why we're working on one part of the space. I think that's actually pretty easy.
[10:57] Zha Ewry: "Look, this is where there are multiple public overlapping implementations, that's what we can spec"
[10:59] Zha Ewry: (I have to put that on a gesture, the hbh is just awful to type)
[10:59] Meadhbh Oh: 'cause my superiors at the IETF will let us move forward with things that define the behavior of existing or soon to be implemented systems.
[10:59] Morgaine Dinova: It doesn't have to be implemented, at this stage of the IETF process. If IETF standards only discussed what was implemented before, there would be nothing new. :-)
[11:04] Zha Ewry: I'm suggesting we tweak our charter a tiny bit, to both make the scope clearer (and a little broader) and then explicitly say "At this point in time, we can work on OGP and such as early MMOX workproducts"
[11:05] Zha Ewry: And, we'll try and get as many Sl centric wording out of our specs as we can, and keep the abstractions broader
[11:05] Teravus Ousley: .. what items are we going to bring up?
[11:05] Infinity Linden: and for what it's worth... there _are_ zero office hours today, but apparenly no one suggested agenda items. so we might talk about the process of getting items on the agenda
[11:07] Infinity Linden: and i'm rushing to get OGP/Auth and OGP/Teleport submitted so they can be discussed @ the f2f meeting
[11:07] Zha Ewry: would love an informative summary of a bunch of topics
[11:07] Zha Ewry: including my "in my head, and somewhat discussion on MMOX chat" full decomposition of
[11:07] Zha Ewry: the Sim/Client connection into its constituent parts
[11:08] Morgaine Dinova: Zha: It's worth noting that there is no document currently justifying use of the OGP model. In AWG we know the justifications because we've been working on it for 16 months, but that's not enough for MMOX. I suggest that either in your revised charter, or in a separate document, the technical justification for choice of OGP for part of the MMOX space be made, just to put the MMOX side of the work on it on solid technical footing.
[11:08] Meadhbh Oh: yup. at the very least a discussion that says... "yeah... content negotiation didn't make it into OGP/Base"
[11:10] Zha Ewry: Infinity, I'm not opposed to that, but.. I'm also not suporting it, unless someone shows me why we can't keep the bits of work in one WG.
[11:11] Zha Ewry: We don't want to NOT do the OGP work
[11:11] Zha Ewry: but that's different from only doing the oGP work
[11:12] Meadhbh Oh: but when people come up and say.. "we're going to block your progress 'cause we have private reasons to not want a spec in this space and we're not going to deploy a system that uses an alterntative."
[11:12] Zha Ewry: I'd rather keep crticial mass in one place, and push the various people in the other branches of the VW cloud overlapped where we can
[11:12] Meadhbh Oh: i don't think that works either
[11:15] Teravus Ousley: well, if we want this standard to actually mean something.. it will have to be vendor neutral in the end.. :D
[11:15] Meadhbh Oh: because jon doesn't want to see a spec that allows us to say... "we have a spec that governs interop with SL" <- that's an opinion, btw
[11:17] Zha Ewry: to actually do the unified state transfer model which lets me stream one stream from a sim to a client, and another to a co-simulating sim
[11:17] Meadhbh Oh: if the croquet peeps picked up on LESS
[11:17] Morgaine Dinova: Zha: your IETF draft got resounding approval all around for being even-handed and vendor neutral. I think that's a good sign of where MMOX as a group stands. I don't think I've heard anyone want anything but MORE ... even LESS is more. :-) It should simply not be as narrow as SL+Opensim, because that wouldn't get interop very far.
[11:17] Meadhbh Oh: i would see if i couldn't figure a way to get it integrated into our system
[11:18] Zha Ewry: And tp from one of thoe to another via OGP
[11:19] Zha Ewry: and then I'll go an buy eveyone who made it work a serious drink
[11:19] Morgaine Dinova: Jon doesn't have to convince the Croquet people to implement LESS. He only has to convince MMOX that it would be a good thing to allow.
[11:19] Zha Ewry: To get it beyond talking, he had s get code
[11:19] Meadhbh Oh: right... though i imagine croquet and forterra users will always be talking to croquet-LESS or forterra-LESS gateways that would talk directly to OGP sims
[11:20] Meadhbh Oh: @morgaine. yes. very related to IETF
[11:21] Zha Ewry: He can publish as many drafts as he wants, but the ADs, IESG and IAB won't let them advance beyond the early states, without code behind them
[11:21] Zha Ewry: (Just as they won't let us put stuff into the OGP spec which doesn't have code)
[11:21] Zha Ewry: (and, more than one copy of the code, in fact)
[11:22] Meadhbh Oh: from multiple genetically distinct sources
[11:22] Morgaine Dinova: Turn it around to see how poor the suggestion is: what you're suggesting is that for Linden to get OGP into the MMOX spec, then Linden first has to convince OLIVE people to implement OGP.
[11:28] Meadhbh Oh: and for the record... i was offering my support for the croquet peeps, if they want to use LESS _and_ they want to have interop with SL
[11:28] Zha Ewry: Who replaced Meadhbh with a lawyer?
[11:29] Meadhbh Oh: @morgaine. for $diet{y|ies} sake. if you don't like OGP, write your own spec, get people to implement it, and then bring it before the IETF
[11:29] Zha Ewry: Here's the big thing, we can make the tent as big as we like
[11:29] Meadhbh Oh: if you do that, i'll help you with the SL interop
[11:29] Zha Ewry: But, the only stuff which is going to get real IETF blessing is stuff which both is in the tent, and has mutiple code impls
[11:30] Zha Ewry: I will, strongly agrue for the charter to be big enough to pick up more stuff, as it hits that level
[11:30] Zha Ewry: But, I will strongly resiist waiting on useful stuff, while waiting
[11:30] Meadhbh Oh: @zha. i'm for that, but it won't get approved if it's too vague
[11:30] Morgaine Dinova: Talking about growing it out to make it more embracing of diversity ... how are we going to do that with LLSD (let's assume it's accepted)? It's been ripped to shreds on technical grounds, so at the very least it will need a lot of patching. But as a Linden spec, it's quite hardwired, and there is severe resistance to it changing, judging by the list. How might that proceed?
[11:30] Meadhbh Oh: it's supposed to have milestones and objectives
[11:30] Zha Ewry: We'll have enough concrete stuff to avoid that
[11:30] Meadhbh Oh: with the idea that you can recharter later
[11:31] Zha Ewry: Thus the charter will say' Her'es the space, and the milestones are focused on what's here, today, with mutiple code"
[11:31] Zha Ewry: and.. here are some work items, which we hope will lead to inclusion in the charter as milestones
[11:31] Meadhbh Oh: ohoh... right... morgaine... what you may not have known... there is a REQUIREMENT that charters be highly focused. and in fact, there were a couple of charter drafts that went back and forth between zha, i, and lisa
[11:32] Meadhbh Oh: some of the input was... "make your objectives more concrete"
[11:32] Teravus Ousley: You could also say that OGP.. is OGP in name.. in that it means (Open Grid Protocol).. Though.. that implies that there is definately a 'Grid'
[11:32] Zha Ewry: The balancing act, to my taste is "broad overall scope, focused objecteives"
[11:32] Meadhbh Oh: which is why i plotzed when JHurliman and you added "general consensus" as an objective
[11:32] Meadhbh Oh: cause in IETF charterland, objectives and milestones are supposed to be concrete
[11:32] Zha Ewry: Because that lets us say 'Here is the fertile ground for new stuff to add tot he charter"
[11:33] Zha Ewry: but.. keeps us on objectives and milestones which we can actually take to bakeoff
[11:33] Zha Ewry: and.. I'm ttoally happy to carry a milestone which is
[11:33] Zha Ewry: "New candidates for milesteons and bakeoffs"
[11:33] Meadhbh Oh: i would argue that virtual worlds hat are implemented on only one machine are not the perview of the IETF
[11:33] Zha Ewry: and let Jon, and Co. bring stuff there, when they have two impls to talk about
[11:33] Meadhbh Oh: @zha.. we need to talk to lisa about that