Subject: [vwrap] Moving startup documents into the working group

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 21:14:23 -0400

It's time to think about which pre-WG documents the working group is
ready to adopt.  As I introduce this, I want to stress that adoption
of documents does NOT mean that the group has consensus on the current
content of those documents, that it collectively agrees with what they
say, that the documents are in any sense "ready".  All it means is
that the working group thinks they're headed in the right direction,
and can be used as a starting point for further refinement.  Indeed,
documents adopted as starting points by the working group might have a
number of significant revisions before they are declared "ready" and
are sent to the IESG.

That said, the chairs would like to take a poll on whether the
following are ready for adoption on their next revisions:

* Introduction and Goals
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hamrick-vwrap-intro-01

* Trust Model and User Authentication
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hamrick-vwrap-authentication-01

* Abstract Type System for the Transmission of Dynamic Structured Data
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hamrick-vwrap-type-system-00

* Client Application Launch Message
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hamrick-vwrap-launch-00

* Foundation
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lentczner-vwrap-foundation-00

Please reply in this thread as in this example, listing each document
and giving your opinion:
> Introduction and Goals - yes
> Trust Model and User Authentication - yes
> Abstract Type System - yes
> Client Application Launch Message - yes
> Foundation - yes

Please make your opinion either "yes" (the working group should adopt
the document) or "no" (the working group should not adopt the
document).

Please do not discuss anything else in this thread.  If you need to
discuss your answer, please start a new thread, with a new subject
line, for the discussion.  If you have any issues you prefer to bring
to the chairs off-list, contact us at <[email-masked]>.

Thanks very much.

-- Barry, as chair

---

From: Morgaine <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 15:43:24 +0100

My Yes/No responses (discussion to follow in a different thread):

> Client Application Launch Message - no
> Foundation - no

Morgaine.

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

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 2:14 AM, Barry Leiba <
[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Morgaine <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 15:52:04 +0100

This is a new discussion thread with a new subject line, as Barry requested.

I gave three documents a Yes and two a No, the meaning of "Yes" being as
Barry said, that they represent a viable starting point --- many large
changes (to some) will be needed before the "Yes" drafts are anywhere near

> Abstract Type System - yes

Now regarding my two "No" responses, meaning "not adequate for group

> Client Application Launch Message - no

"*Client Application Launch Message*" -- this simply has no business being
part of the VWRAP protocol suite at all.  Launching applications is
completely outside of our remit I believe, and undoubtedly there will be a
large number of ways of achieving it, depending on the platform.  The
closest I think we might get to this area is to define the meaning of a
"landmark" entity (as an URI in the protocol), but blessing one particular
use of such an entity is quite unnecessary.

"*Foundation*" --- I gave this a "No" because it appears to be an
"archeological OGP" document, unearthed from the original days of OGP.  It
does not reflect the OGPX or VWRAP group discussions at all, and is even
oblivious of the group charter --- notice its attempt to create a single
"vast, Internet wide virtual world".

What's more, we already have a foundational document --- it's called
"Introduction and Goals".  Admittedly it's not a very friendly document
either as background reading nor for the implementer, but nevertheless its
purpose was to provide the foundation, I believe.  Perhaps the new
"Foundation" document was a gentle attempt at saying "Unreadable" to the
first document, and asking for a refactoring?  If so then I'd support that,
because currently "Introduction and Goals" is a meandering document with
little clarity of purpose.  Perhaps "Introduction and Goals" should be
renamed "Protocol Elements" and have all its background sections removed,
which would then leave room for an "Introduction" document that would
provide background and glue for everything else, but no details.

I get the feeling that a big refactoring is due.  Documents have been
appearing out of the blue without any prior discussion of their need or of
their scope, as a result of which we currently have a random checkerboard of
documents, and nothing outside of the type system is particularly well
described or useful so far.

Morgaine.

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

---

From: "Hurliman, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 10:38:28 -0600

Foundation - no

John

On May 26, 2010, at 6:14 PM, "Barry Leiba" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote: