User:Zero Linden/Office Hours/2009 feb 03

• [13:00] Zero Linden: Well - welcome all to my office hours!
• [13:00] Eddy Stryker: hello
• [13:00] FWord Utorid: wb zero, long time no see
• [13:00] Zero Linden: first and foremost -- did everyone see the posting to SLDev?
• [13:00] Morgaine Dinova: Yep
• [13:01] JayR Cela: not me
• [13:01] Rob Linden: posting? ;-)
• [13:01] Zero Linden: anyone have a URL to an archive of it handy?
• [13:01] Rob Linden: I'll dig it up
• [13:01] Latha Serevi: https://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/2009-January/012782.html
• [13:01] Susan Tsuki: your email with the quarterly IETF? That was fantastic! https://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/2009-January/012782.html
• [13:01] Zero Linden: thank you!
• [13:01] Rob Linden: loves when his digging is pre-dug
• [13:01] Saijanai Kuhn: and this mornings' meeting: https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/AW_Groupies/Chat_Logs/AWGroupies-2009-02-03
• [13:02] Zero Linden: So - the agenda for today is pretty set: that e-mail has two parts
• [13:03] Zero Linden: okay 3 parts
• [13:03] Morgaine Dinova: And a good 48h's discussion about the email on AW Groupies, hehe. I think we've examined a lot of options, in the absence of facts :P
• [13:03] Zero Linden: 1) specs, 2) this meeting, 3) IETF
• [13:03] Susan Tsuki: have you picked out an acronym yet? I like slawg, but I don't know if that one's been used.
• [13:03] FWord Utorid: push the facts button please
• [13:03] FWord Utorid: Second Life Open Worlds
• [13:03] FWord Utorid: SLOW
• [13:03] FWord Utorid: :P
• [13:03] Morgaine Dinova: lol
• [13:04] Morgaine Dinova: Open Worlds Protocol Group
• [13:04] Eddy Stryker: a new group is starting?
• [13:04] Zero Linden: okay - so moving forward and onto the agenda
• [13:04] Zero Linden: 1) Specs
• [13:05] Infinity Linden: i'm in favor of specs
• [13:05] Zero Linden: As stated in my message, our internal focus here at LL is going to be on writing up specs
• [13:05] Zero Linden: nice, formal, clear, concise, specs
• [13:06] Morgaine Dinova: Proposed specs?
• [13:06] Susan Tsuki: owpg is free, and it sounds a lot less Rumsfeldian than slawg
• [13:06] Zero Linden: Yes - we don't think anything in 2009 is likely to be set in stone (with one or two exceptions)
• [13:07] Zha Ewry: will be happy if its set in Jello
• [13:07] Tribal Skytower: Will Linden Labs commit to honouring those AWG specs?
• [13:07] Susan Tsuki: here's the IETF specification style guide: [1]
• [13:07] Tribal Skytower: as they are written, I mean?
• [13:07] Zero Linden: If by "honouring" you mean, will we operate our live systems to those specs....
• [13:08] Saijanai Kuhn: TP is in draft 5. Which draft are you requesting commitment for, Tribal?
• [13:08] Zero Linden: ... then, well, no... but let me explain
• [13:08] Zero Linden: These aren't going to be specs of LL's running system. These are specs of where we'd like the eventual protocol to be
• [13:08] Rob Linden: Tribal: we commit to working in good faith on public specifications.
• [13:08] Zero Linden: we've had call from our own internal groups to create specs so that they can evolve the live system toward something concrete
• [13:09] Morgaine Dinova: Well LL is very likely to honour the specs they write. :-) The bigger question is whether those "proposed" specs are going to be pushed through, or whether they're just the priming.
• [13:09] Zero Linden: And (as in section 3), you'll see that these will form input to a public process
• [13:09] Tribal Skytower: Why I'm asking, is because it's probably very hampering for a protocol to evolve if there is no development platform honouring it.
• [13:09] Morgaine Dinova: Thanks Rob
• [13:09] Saijanai Kuhn: pyogp will honor it
• [13:09] Zha Ewry: One way to pose that, Zero, is "Will there be a comitment to a path to those specs, over time?"
• [13:10] Zero Linden: Tribal - that is a real risk, and one we discussed internally a lot --
• [13:10] Susan Tsuki: excepting those dated April 1, of course
• [13:10] Saijanai Kuhn: darn
• [13:10] Rob Linden: Zha: we can't commit unilaterally to specifications that haven't been written. we can commit to work in good faith with others that are working in good faith.
• [13:10] Zero Linden: -- but I believe that OGP is reaching an point where we need to see input from a lot of different sides
• [13:10] Zha Ewry: me nods
• [13:11] Zha Ewry: Good faith, and all, are reasonable words
• [13:11] Zero Linden: inside LL we are going to try our best to write up what we understand now... I don't think we are working in a vacuum
• [13:11] G2 Proto: hello gridnauts, Lindens!
• [13:11] Susan Tsuki: Instead of "unilaterally" the word "presciently" works too
• [13:11] Eddy Stryker: Zero: what specifically are you documenting, or writing specs on?
• [13:11] Rex Cronon: hi
• [13:11] Patnad Babii: Hi G2 :)
• [13:11] Morgaine Dinova: Although working "in good faith on public specifications" still doesn't go very far if those specification "proposals" are actually hardwired. So the "in good faith" needs to come earlier.
• [13:11] Zero Linden: outside of LL I encourage everyone to work as they see most profitably -- some will implement then document, some will document, others will mix
• [13:12] Saijanai Kuhn: some will use evolutionary programming techniques
• [13:12] Zero Linden: Eddy - We will aim to first fill out those drafts we started last Spring, and then to add additional areas that are currently missing.
• [13:12] Saijanai Kuhn: "the documentation is the DNA of the organism"
• [13:12] Eddy Stryker: Zero: will it be things like an ABI for scripts? a procedural geometry standard? specs for texture compression in virtual worlds? a common avatar format?
• [13:13] Zero Linden: We haven't set a sequence or roadmap yet -- but I think we can expect IM, Inventory, Assets, and Profiles to be among the 2nd wave
• [13:13] Latha Serevi: There are lots of layers and pieces that I could imagine being separate specs -- some cribbed from Zha this morning were: LLDL; Caps; Authentication; AD; Region Domain; Content and extensible low level prims; Asset serving; inventory serving. I'll be interested in any lists of possible pieces that might exist.
• [13:13] Morgaine Dinova: Zero: we were discussing earlier in the AW Groupies meeting how extensibility can be ensured to be in the protocol, and not just an airy fairy future intent.
• [13:14] Zero Linden: Eddy - things that are above and beyond the current SL feature set will probably not be worked on by us -- so procedural geometry and VW specific texture compression will not
• [13:14] Zero Linden: be in the works
• [13:14] Eddy Stryker: zero: i meant prims
• [13:14] Morgaine Dinova: Because needless to say, an IETF standard needs to apply to more than just SL and SL-clone worlds.
• [13:15] Zero Linden: prim format will obviously have to be in the suite
• [13:15] Zero Linden:  :-)
• [13:15] Eddy Stryker: ok
• [13:15] Zha Ewry: notes that one of the nice things about the IETF, is it gives us a place to document htings Linden Lab doesn't want to worko n
• [13:15] Zero Linden: I'm pretty confident that we have several people involved, both LL and non-LL how have a lot of experience with developing standards with extensibility
• [13:15] Zero Linden: so, I'm pretty sure that that will be covered
• [13:16] Infinity Linden: so writing a procedural geometry ID to extend whatever gets published first is a very real option
• [13:16] Morgaine Dinova: One of the big issues will be hierarchical objects. Since you say "prim format will have to be in the suite", so will the format for hierarchical objects.
• [13:16] Zero Linden: I encourage you to write a draft!
• [13:16] Zero Linden: Which is a perfect segue to the second item
• [13:17] Zero Linden: 2) The future of this meeting
• [13:17] Tribal Skytower: May I add that there's currently quite a lot of discussion about portable region, asset, prim and inventory formats in OpenSim
• [13:17] Tribal Skytower: Our nive approach so far has been to take an xml dump of the class structure
• [13:17] Zero Linden: First and foremost --- I have been holding my office hours for almost two years now
• [13:17] Tribal Skytower: If the AWG could form a sub-project on those issues, that would probably be a very good thing
• [13:18] Zero Linden: I have really enjoyed this and they have been very important to helping shape my thinking
• [13:18] Zero Linden: Thank you all for being part of this journey
• [13:19] Zero Linden: Now -
• [13:19] G2 Proto: awesome Zero we appreciate it right back
• [13:19] Zero Linden: Given that we are going to be focused on writing concrete specs -- thinks that can be pointed to and discussed
• [13:19] Zero Linden: We think the time is ripe to move this forum in a similar direction
• [13:20] Morgaine Dinova: It's been very interesting Zero, even in those parts where we've been unable to agree to do better. Very grateful that you held them. :-)
• [13:20] Zero Linden: The plan of record is: This meeting will now happen once a month: First Tuesday, 1pm - 3pm SLT
• [13:20] Zha Ewry: n otes 2 hours, not 1
• [13:20] Zero Linden: The meeting will only operate on an agenda that will be pulled together and published the week before
• [13:20] Susan Tsuki: I was afraid you were going quarterly
• [13:21] Zero Linden: (by which I'm sure I mean the Friday before!)
• [13:21] Morgaine Dinova: So it's down from 8h per month to 2h.
• [13:21] Susan Tsuki: but I agree with the tendency to use the ansynchronous email lists if you're going to keep the necessary IETF charter components up
• [13:21] Zero Linden: But - the agenda is to be limited to discussion of actual documents - documents written by LL or by other AWG members
• [13:21] Zha Ewry: ITEF stuff on as mailing list, should continue apace
• [13:22] Zha Ewry: but again, basedo n actual documents
• [13:22] Zero Linden: and the goal should be that those documents are made available to all before the agenda is published
• [13:22] Zha Ewry: Which begs the questoin "What will the IP rules of engagement be at office hours, in relation to the IETF rules"
• [13:22] Zero Linden: If the agenda submissions warrant it - I'll be happy to extend the length of the meeting, but not the frequency (for now)
• [13:23] Zero Linden: (yes - there is going to be some work to inter-operate the AWG meetings with the IETF rules... but more on that in a bit)
• [13:24] Hermit Barber: So anyone can put forward any document on any subject (to whom, by when) and it then is part of the meeting agenda?
• [13:24] Zha Ewry: waits for that sectoin of discussion
• [13:24] Zero Linden: We will set up a place in the wiki to put documents and a place to submit agenda items -- keep an eye on the AWG page in the next two weeks
• [13:24] Zero Linden: Hermit - well, to be honest, since these is my office hours, I'll serve as selection committee --
• [13:25] Zero Linden: if the documents are on topic (OGP development) and sufficiently concrete - then, yup, they'll be on the Agenda
• [13:25] Hermit Barber: Will the documents put up be visible to all whether selected or not?
• [13:25] Zero Linden: Hermit - the SL wiki is a pretty open place, no?
• [13:25] Saijanai Kuhn: Hermit, just stick them in a wiki space for tentative OGP documents
• [13:25] Hermit Barber: Nods
• [13:26] Susan Tsuki: By concrete, you must mean in Internet Draft format and actually running somewhere
• [13:26] Hermit Barber: Just trying to establish the parameters.
• [13:26] Saijanai Kuhn: E.G. https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Category:AW_Groupies_User_Pages
• [13:26] Susan Tsuki: or dated April 1
• [13:26] Zha Ewry: Well, draft discussion, can be before that, but eventuayl, yes
• [13:26] Zero Linden: One thing that I'll spell out with more words when I write it up is that by "on the Agenda", I'm looking for more than "Here's my document about wombat support in OGP. Discuss."
• [13:26] Infinity Linden: right... discussion here is different than discussion at IETF meetings
• [13:27] Hermit Barber: Sasan: He has already said that they wil relate to a future intent, not an implementation, thuis they can't meet the "actually running" IETF requirement.
• [13:27] Rob Linden: multiple choice questions tend to be the best things to resolve in meetings like this
• [13:27] Infinity Linden: IETF will likely have be stringent on teh "running code" requirement
• [13:27] Rex Cronon: so, what happens if u aren't avavilable zero? can the group vote on the selection of agenda items?
• [13:27] TheBlack Box: i came late, so i dont know if this has been mentioned yet ... may be interesting to hear some ideas about it: [2]
• [13:27] Zero Linden: I'll be looking for specific dicussion: More like: "Here's my document on wombat support in OGP. Explain current status, ask for areas of concern, call for participation."
• [13:28] Saijanai Kuhn: that would go into a proposed document of this type
• [13:28] Zha Ewry: "And here is an endpiont wjhich is running that endpoint"
• [13:28] Zha Ewry: err. try
• [13:28] Zha Ewry: :Here is an endpoint which is running that service"
• [13:28] Zero Linden: Rex- I will be available for this. It is my job.
• [13:28] Zero Linden:  :-)
• [13:28] Zero Linden: And yes, I made sure to get executive commitment on that point before I came and committed to you all!
• [13:28] Susan Tsuki: Hermit, I reaid Morgaine's comment about furture intent differently
• [13:29] Zero Linden:  :-)
• [13:29] Rob Linden: Rex: remember, you can also bring things up directly in the IETF context
• [13:29] Rex Cronon: ok
• [13:29] Zero Linden: Which... now brings us to door number 3: IETF
• [13:29] Zha Ewry: In fact, for a lot of stuff, the IETF path may be the first choice
• [13:30] Zero Linden: So, before we get into relation between IETF process and AWG....
• [13:30] Zero Linden: ... let's get clear on IETF
• [13:30] Zero Linden: So, I doubt the annoucment of intention to focus on the IETF came as much a surprise, though it was probably
• [13:30] Zero Linden: sooner than many of you (or really, even I) thought it would happen
• [13:31] Zero Linden: However - thre is a clear opportunity: IETF 74 is being held in San Francisco
• [13:31] Zero Linden: and, with a risk to being Silly-con Valley centric,
• [13:31] Zero Linden: there are quite a number of people involved in this activity nearby
• [13:31] Zero Linden: at least more so than near the next several IETFs
• [13:32] Zha Ewry: observes Copenhagan, and Hiroshima
• [13:32] Infinity Linden: Stockholm.. not Copenhagen
• [13:32] Zha Ewry: Right. Sorry
• [13:32] Morgaine Dinova: Well an IETF future was planned right from the start. The only reason it never happened before is because so little got done over 15 months of AWG. And that still applies.
• [13:33] Susan Tsuki: there are at least 25 internet drafts worth of material on the wiki right now
• [13:33] Infinity Linden: Then we look forward to your proposals at the IETF sponsored forums where you won't be hampered by our slow nature
• [13:33] G2 Proto: hehe
• [13:33] Susan Tsuki: and take the message template file, for example, that's full of pure normative specifications
• [13:33] Latif Khalifa: lol
• [13:33] Zero Linden: So - we have already
• [13:34] Zero Linden: requested the formation of a mailing list at the ietf
• [13:34] Susan Tsuki: well, maybe not all purely normative, you know, I mean, the tree structure encoded in it....
• [13:34] Morgaine Dinova: Infinity: I think the issue is more "business interests" than "slow nature"
• [13:35] Zero Linden: Welcome to the mmox@ietf.org mailing list!
• [13:35] Susan Tsuki: why can't you host it on lists.secondlife.com?
• [13:35] Zero Linden: see mmox-request@ietf.org for membership
• [13:35] Infinity Linden: and yeah... one of hte things we're trying to get away from in OGP is enshrining the UDP message system in a standard
• [13:35] Zero Linden: Susan we do host mailing lists SLDev@lists.secondlife.com
• [13:36] Infinity Linden: well.. it's an official IETF list...
• [13:36] Zha Ewry: IETF lists are hosted on the IETF hosts
• [13:36] Zha Ewry: Which means.. by the way
• [13:36] Zero Linden: but it is important for everyone here to realize that an official IETF list carries a number of significant features
• [13:36] Rob Linden: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
• [13:36] Zha Ewry: Please read he IETF IPR rules
• [13:36] Susan Tsuki: I know, I'm just saying you should at least mirror it, I hope, in case one of them goes down, in honor of our having three wikis
• [13:36] Zero Linden: YES: PLEASE READ THE IETF IPR RULES
• [13:36] Infinity Linden: We should repeat that... "Please read the IETF IPR Rules"
• [13:36] Rob Linden: In case you didn't catch that, please read the IETF IPR rules
• [13:37] Zero Linden: So - I don't imagine that mmox will supplant SLDev
• [13:37] Morgaine Dinova: It's like a bunch of bloggers, all repeating each other but not giving any facts ^_^
• [13:37] Zero Linden: they are for different purposes
• [13:37] Latha Serevi: Perhaps someone could point me to the relevant thing I"m supposed to read. What is IPR, anyway?
• [13:37] Infinity Linden: lol +1 Morgaine
• [13:37] Zha Ewry: Not in particular, disclosed patents, with RAND licensing
• [13:37] Zha Ewry: *NOTE
• [13:37] Zero Linden: Morgaine - I don't think you want me to cut-n-paste the IPR rules.... :-)
• [13:37] Morgaine Dinova: Hehe
• [13:37] Zha Ewry: I'll dig for a link
• [13:37] Morgaine Dinova: Just a link will do :P
• [13:38] Infinity Linden: mmm... i think they put them in an informational RFC thought... lemme dig it up
• [13:38] Rob Linden: Latha: IPR==intellectual property rights
• [13:38] Zero Linden: secondly is that we have asked the IETF for a BoF session at IETF 74
• [13:38] Morgaine Dinova: Imaginary Property Rights
• [13:38] Infinity Linden: start here
• [13:38] Rob Linden: [3]
• [13:38] Zha Ewry: [4]
• [13:38] Infinity Linden: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/about/
• [13:38] Morgaine Dinova: Thx
• [13:39] Rob Linden: the NOTEWELL page is the summary
• [13:39] Infinity Linden: then read the two RFCs linked to at the top of that page
• [13:39] Zha Ewry: [5]
• [13:39] Zha Ewry: Which I just posted links to
• [13:39] Zero Linden: the purpose of a BoF is to agree on a charter for a Working Group
• [13:40] Zero Linden: which then, begins the work of creating drafts and standards
• [13:40] Zha Ewry: Commonly this runs in parallel, drafts, charter, and such
• [13:41] Zha Ewry: With the goal of having very concrete work going on by the time you have an approved charter
• [13:41] Zero Linden: Yes -
• [13:41] Zha Ewry: And.. nota bena: Concrete work, is going to be measured by both code and documents
• [13:41] Zero Linden: so - to that end, the LLSD draft is about to be submitted to the RFC editor so that it can be published in time for discussion at IETF 74 (the BoF will not just be all administrivia)
• [13:42] Susan Tsuki: here's an example of an existing spec which looks a lot like an internet draft already: [6]
• [13:43] Zero Linden: I anticipate another 5 drafts in various states in process in 12 mos. times
• [13:43] Rob Linden: (1 or 2 per meeting)
• [13:43] Zero Linden: Susan -- indeed, Draft 4 is what I think Infinity will be submitting ASAP
• [13:43] Rob Linden: (IETF F2F meeting that is)
• [13:44] Latha Serevi: Discussion has slowed down, presumably because everyone is trying to read the IETF IPR rules and failing to get anything useful out of them. Sigh. Screw it.
• [13:44] Eddy Stryker: Zero: the agenda on [7] includes two items (LLSD and the event queue) that are specific to Linden Lab's current implementation of their virtual world. is this working group an evolution of the Second Life platform, or is it open to all virtual world development?
• [13:44] Zha Ewry: Note also, that the IETF process has three core bits.. Mailing list working on drafts, f2f issue bashing the stuff which doesn't flatten on the mailing list, and.. then bakeoffs
• [13:44] Zero Linden: ...and I make a mean triple-almond bundt cake, so ya'll be warned, okay?
• [13:45] Infinity Linden: i belive the way ew might say it is.. it's an open virtual world effort to specify what SL will evolve into (or something like that)
• [13:45] Zha Ewry: chuckles and looks for fresh blueberries
• [13:45] Rob Linden: (which you can't call "bakeoff" unless you want to incur the wrath of Pillsbury. I wish I were joking)
• [13:45] Zha Ewry: sighs
• [13:45] Zha Ewry: excuse me, "Technical interop session"
• [13:45] Zero Linden: Which brings us to the final topic -- relation of AWG to the IETF efforts
• [13:45] Eddy Stryker: Infinity: ok, so this is just specific to Second Life then. not the appropriate vehicle to talk about generic virtual world standards
• [13:46] Morgaine Dinova: I don't think that the IETF procedures are a problem. What worries me are the 3-monthly procedures here.
• [13:46] Infinity Linden: yes. it is appropriate
• [13:46] Infinity Linden: but it will not be describing what SL is now
• [13:46] Zha Ewry: I'd hope people bring a broad range of input to the IETF BOF
• [13:46] Morgaine Dinova: In a nutshell: 3 sessions with Zero in between protocol spec releases is not enough to get those things that need changing changed.
• [13:46] Zero Linden: Well - I'd say that AWG is closer-knit community of people who have a particular viewpoint on virtual worlds and standards to serve them
• [13:46] Eddy Stryker: ok. so the fact that LLSD and the event queue are on the agenda are more because LL is sponsoring the event, not because they have more technical merit than other proposals
• [13:47] Zha Ewry: Bring proposals
• [13:47] Morgaine Dinova: And therefore this is a recipe for de facto pushing of the LL specs forward without change.
• [13:47] Rob Linden: Morgaine: the mmox mailing list is 24x7
• [13:47] Zero Linden: We (communal, AWG 'we') have knowledge and insight into how this kind of world is built and run, and how it needs to be served
• [13:47] Infinity Linden: right. we're going to be putting forward a proposal or two. we're DEFINITELY welcoming other people to do the same
• [13:47] Morgaine Dinova: Rob: not talking about the IETF deliberations, but in Zero's process between releases.
• [13:48] Morgaine Dinova: The purpose of the 3 meetings
• [13:48] Zero Linden: I expect that we will have more specific focus on some things, and have common experience so that we can bring that wisdom to bear in the larger arena of the IETF
• [13:48] Zha Ewry: I expect.. that issues will fall into two buckets
• [13:48] Zha Ewry: Ones where we want to get Linden to suppport things (and there, zero is of course indepepsible)
• [13:48] Zha Ewry: and ones where we need to explore stuff that's broader than what Linden is goinfg to do, and there, the IETF mailing list becomes the venue
• [13:49] Zha Ewry: What's nice, is it gets both sets of issues out and ale to be addressed
• [13:49] Zero Linden: Now, we need to do some review of how the IETF requirements will apply to "subgroups" like this -- but I'm pretty sure that so long as all this communication stays open, and any meetings are announced on mmox, we're cool
• [13:49] Zha Ewry: so.. if for example, one wanted to cannonicalize , say, hypergrid, that might be a lovely IETF input
• [13:49] Morgaine Dinova: It doesn't look substantially different to LL injecting documents directly into IETF for discussion. I'm not saying that it's a deliberate sham, but only that there simply isn't TIME for any changes to get accepted, let alone made, in Zero's cycle.
• [13:50] GG Office: Hours HUD v1.5: 2:00 PM: Amber Linden: General
• http://slurl.com/secondlife/Portage/14/154/98 (Starts in 10 minutes)
• [13:50] GG Office: Hours HUD v1.5: 2:00 PM: Prospero Linden: Server issues triage (on Preview Grid, Morris 197,251,35)
• Preview Grid (Aditi) (Starts in 10 minutes)
• [13:50] Eddy Stryker: Zha: doesn't that seem like an odd way to split up an IETF discussion? "things that company X is in favor of, and things company X does not want to work on"
• [13:50] Saijanai Kuhn: Morgaine there's still the AW Groupies meetings every week, and OpenSim and openmv and...
• [13:50] Goldie Katsu: Besides the fact than you can't just inject documents into the ietf?
• [13:50] Zero Linden: I don't anticipate that the documents LL will be producing and publishing to the AWG quarterly will be simulatenously published as IETF drafts
• [13:51] Zero Linden: I'm pretty sure those docs will go through a quarter or three of revision here before they are in draft form
• [13:51] Zha Ewry: I'm expecting a pipeline
• [13:51] Rob Linden: btw: I encourage everyone to read [8]
• [13:51] Rob Linden: "The Tao of IETF: A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force"
• [13:51] Infinity Linden: good call Rob
• [13:51] Infinity Linden: it's a must-read
• [13:51] Zha Ewry: Some of which will come in from Linden (and the AWGs
• [13:51] Zha Ewry: )
• [13:51] Zha Ewry: and some of which will come in from out side it
• [13:51] Zha Ewry: I don't expect Zero to work on the later
• [13:51] Rob Linden: note that you all are peers in this process, and there's a lot of safeguards to keep our agenda from dominating
• [13:52] Zero Linden: Right -- At the risk of belabouring the point: Bringing this to the IETF subtantially formalizes the process of how things go on....
• [13:52] Zero Linden: ....there are both rules and established process -- and all of it is written up on the IETF pages
• [13:52] Zha Ewry: And, takes the editing and management of the specs into a more formally group managed process
• [13:53] Saijanai Kuhn: LL brings a corporate focus but slow development time. OpenSim/openmv bring a OSS focus and much faster development time. Seems to me its balanced
• [13:53] Zha Ewry: which, circles back to the risk raised earlier..
• [13:53] Eddy Stryker: speaking of safeguards, Zero you alluded earlier in the meeting to "people inside of LL and outside" that will be working on the IETF process. is there already an established group that will participate?
• [13:53] Eddy Stryker: or did you just mean AWG?
• [13:53] Zero Linden: It also bears pointing out that IETF participation involves some legal ramifications for both individuals and organizations ---
• [13:53] Rob Linden: it frequently happens that one set of authors works on a draft, then someone else comes along with a competing draft, and the competing draft become sthe new base documnet
• [13:53] Zha Ewry: Which is whether people actually implement the specs which emerge
• [13:54] Zha Ewry: There's a requiremenrt for working code, but no reuquirement that the end path actually be adopted by the community or its big players
• [13:54] Zero Linden: please be sure that you are comfortable with the legal issues, and your organization is aware and comfortable with them too
• [13:54] Zha Ewry: (The IETF process is littered with lovely RFCs which never get used)
• [13:54] Zha Ewry: That said..
• [13:54] Zha Ewry: Its got a really good
• [13:54] Latif Khalifa: I sense competing LLSD draft coming from Eddy :)
• [13:54] Zha Ewry: track record of getting things done and interoperating
• [13:55] GG Office: Hours HUD v1.5: 2:00 PM: Amber Linden: General
• http://slurl.com/secondlife/Portage/14/154/98 (Starts in 5 minutes)
• [13:55] GG Office: Hours HUD v1.5: 2:00 PM: Prospero Linden: Server issues triage (on Preview Grid, Morris 197,251,35)
• Preview Grid (Aditi) (Starts in 5 minutes)
• [13:55] Rob Linden: +1 Zha....batting average is pretty good as standards bodies go
• [13:55] Zero Linden: Eddy - I think I meant the AWG....(searchs for quote in context)
• [13:55] Zha Ewry: thinks nothing would be better then competing drafts, becuase, that puts the discussion down to very conrcrete terms, and is how we get real progress
• [13:55] Latha Serevi: I think I and several of us are confused about how we might contribute our possible-protocol-bits-and-pieces to the process. Post to mmox (easy, but what is its impact)? Submit a standalone IETF proposal (difficult, but official) or an appendix to a current one (do such exist) ?
• [13:55] Zero Linden: (Indeed, I wrote many a draft for SPF... and the one that is now official was written by someone else --- even thought it is 95% my words!)
• [13:56] Zero Linden: (welcome to the lesson in ego-less-ness that is the IETF)
• [13:56] Zha Ewry: chuckles
• [13:56] Morgaine Dinova: Eddy: in Zero's new model for AWG, AWG becomes pretty much a vehicle for Opensim proposals, with the sole exception of Zha presenting things from the IBM viewpoint.
• [13:56] Zha Ewry: Or any good standards process. Love not the words, love the results
• [13:56] Zha Ewry: I hope not Morgaine
• [13:56] Zero Linden: Well - no -- Latha
• [13:56] Zha Ewry: the IETF won't recognzie the AWG in anyf ormal way.. The IETF will reocognzie what people submit
• [13:56] Rob Linden: also had original work clobbered in the process, though his name is still one of many on the final doc
• [13:56] Susan Tsuki: question: is it okay to copy drafts to both sldev and mmox?
• [13:56] Zero Linden: I think it depends on where you are at in your development of such ideas
• [13:57] Morgaine Dinova: Well Zero hasn't explained the role of AWG yet, so we're still guessing from the email.
• [13:57] Zha Ewry: sighs
• [13:57] Goldie Katsu: bites tongue
• [13:57] Zha Ewry: Watch for the IPR rules and how they tangle
• [13:57] Zero Linden: early stage, if they are applicable to this AWG audience, then publish them on the SL wiki, ask for input on SLDev, and then later for discussion at an AWG meeting
• [13:57] Zha Ewry: SL-Dev is covered by the Linden Contribution Agreement, ITEF mailing lists by the IETF rules
• [13:57] Zero Linden: On the toher hand, if you have something that is somewhat off the track of the AWG mindshare, or is "alternative" (I'm trying to not say compeating)
• [13:58] Rob Linden: AWG becomes "influence Linden Lab's participation in mmox", whereas participating in mmox is "participate as a peer to Linden Lab employees"
• [13:58] Eddy Stryker: Zha: assuming that the process for setting work items is not biased, and the attendee list is not biased
• [13:58] Zero Linden: AND you are ready to prepare something to the IETF draft requirements level --- then by all means prepare a draft
• [13:58] Zero Linden: and submit to the IETF
• [13:58] Zha Ewry: nods
• [13:58] Zero Linden: for consideration by the MMOX group
• [13:58] Zha Ewry: I encourage lots of people to get involved in making sure that won't happen. the IETF is about the least poltical of the standards bodies I know
• [13:58] Zero Linden: (er, not to imply that we have a MMOX working group yet --- remember we are several IETF actions away from them chartering a group)
• [13:58] Morgaine Dinova: Zha: remember that Zero has explicitly made discussions not supported by a written up proposal off the agenda. Which means we can't simply comment on things in the quarterly release that fail.
• [13:59] Zha Ewry: So, uhm. Write it up?
• [13:59] Zero Linden: Morgaine - there is both SLDev mailing list .... and mmox mailing list .... and other meetings within in SL
• [13:59] Saijanai Kuhn: Category:MMOX
• [13:59] Zero Linden: Zha - do you want to comment on future of AW Groupies meetings?
• [14:00] GG Office: Hours HUD v1.5: 2:00 PM: Amber Linden: General
• http://slurl.com/secondlife/Portage/14/154/98 (Starts now)
• [14:00] GG Office: Hours HUD v1.5: 2:00 PM: Prospero Linden: Server issues triage (on Preview Grid, Morris 197,251,35)
• Preview Grid (Aditi) (Starts now)
• [14:00] Zha Ewry: nods
• [14:00] Zha Ewry: Sure
• [14:00] Rob Linden: Morgaine: read the Tao of IETF. you have a lot of recourses if you find Linden Lab (or anyone) is acting in bad faith
• [14:00] Zha Ewry: I intend to keep holding the weeklies for now, and see how that works
• [14:00] Zha Ewry: I've goteen several invites to host every other on OpenSim
• [14:00] Zha Ewry: and I think that's worth doing
• [14:00] Zha Ewry: Or..
• [14:00] Zha Ewry: more formally
• [14:01] Zha Ewry: Host the AWGroupies meetings every other week
• [14:01] Zha Ewry: ad host a parallel meeting on OpenSim with the same community, fi you prefer
• [14:01] Morgaine Dinova: Rob: not talking about bad faith, and never have. It's always been about "we don't wanna do that", despite good reasons for it (eg. sim scalability).
• [14:01] Zha Ewry: I care not a whit about the name
• [14:01] Zero Linden: Well - there - we got through the entire agenda! Woot
• [14:02] Goldie Katsu: Implementation is left to the providers
• [14:02] Zha Ewry: In terms of acting in good faith, you're moving from a setting where that has been dependent on a singel company
• [14:02] Zero Linden: So-- anything left hanging?
• [14:02] Goldie Katsu: The great thing about standards is there are so many to chose from.
• [14:02] Zha Ewry: to one where there is a clear path to public discussion about that in a well regarded organziation
• [14:02] Latha Serevi: remedial IETF 101 question -- regarding becoming a reviewer-of, rather than a creator-of, an IETF draft -- how are such things reviewed, and what qualifications are required for reviewers or WG members?
• [14:02] Morgaine Dinova: Zero, I'd like you to comment on Eddy's earlier point, about things in the spec apparently hardwiring in LL's way of doing things.
• [14:03] Morgaine Dinova: Because I want to feel we're working towards open virtual worlds, not just to an extended SL.
• [14:03] Rob Linden: Latha: read Tao of IETF. Short answer: anyone can submit. review process is harder to explain
• [14:04] Zero Linden: Latha - participation is generally very very open - just discuss on the relevant mailing list
• [14:04] Rob Linden: Latha: "rough consensus and running code". join the mailing list and BOOM, you're a reviewer
• [14:04] Rob Linden: wg chairs, area directors, IAB and others are there to make sure that everyone gets a fair shake on the mailing list
• [14:04] Zha Ewry: notes that this may required Linden Lab to submit working code exampels with proposals
• [14:05] GG Office: Hours HUD v1.5: 2:00 PM: Amber Linden: General
• http://slurl.com/secondlife/Portage/14/154/98 (Started 5 minutes ago)
• [14:05] GG Office: Hours HUD v1.5: 2:00 PM: Prospero Linden: Server issues triage (on Preview Grid, Morris 197,251,35)
• Preview Grid (Aditi) (Started 5 minutes ago)
• [14:05] Morgaine Dinova: chuckles
• [14:05] Eddy Stryker: Zero: how many LL employees are going to be working on drafting specs?
• [14:05] Zero Linden: Morgaine- I don't think it would a big surprise that we'd submit drafts that were geared to the way SL works now or how we'd like to make it work in the future
• [14:05] Eddy Stryker: i'm curious how fast other people have to run to keep from being drowned out
• [14:05] Zha Ewry: laughs
• [14:05] Zha Ewry: Eddy?
• [14:05] Latha Serevi: Thanks Zero & Rob, for the useful responses on how the proceses work. I'm slowly getting the picture.
• [14:05] JayR Cela: see ya'll later / byeeee :_)
• [14:05] Zha Ewry: How much output has been generated over the last year?
• [14:06] Zero Linden: however, I hope our continuation of the AWG is indication that we have, and continue to have, an honest desire to develop the work based on input not just from our own engineering
• [14:06] Saijanai Kuhn: Seems to me that LL has committed to the paperwork part, while openmv is far more nimble for the coding part
• [14:06] Zha Ewry: Unless the amount goes up a *lot* getting drowned is not obvious too me ;-(
• [14:06] Rob Linden: Eddy: it's more maybe about persistance than running fast.
• [14:06] Susan Tsuki: I tried to explain the review process earlier in https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/AW_Groupies/Chat_Logs/AWGroupies-2009-02-03 and I would just like to say: Bakeoff, Bakeoff, Bakeoff! I welcome corespondence from Pilsbury on the subject, too.
• [14:07] Zha Ewry: Bash to consenus when possib le in mailing list
• [14:07] Zha Ewry: F2F when that fails
• [14:07] Zero Linden: Eddy: "fast" and "run" are rarely words used in the same sentence as "standards body"
• [14:07] Zha Ewry: bakeoff to score
• [14:07] Saijanai Kuhn: windoers if Pilsbury is an official SL last name...
• [14:07] Morgaine Dinova: Zero: well that's precisely the problem. I think "acting in good faith" towards an open worlds spec requires you to filter out SL'isms that make evolving to better worlds hard. Putting in SL'isms and hoping that we don't filter them out here or at the IETF is not really all that "good faith".
• [14:08] Zero Linden: I think the IETF has a long and clear track record of not being a 'rubber stamp' for the corporations who get the paperwork done first
• [14:08] Morgaine Dinova: Unlike the ISO.
• [14:08] Saijanai Kuhn: you're requiring LL to not have an agenda, Morgaine...
• [14:09] Zero Linden: Er, no I don't think "acting in good faith" requires us to preemptively guess what other people will need or want --- our business model does, but only with respect to our business ----
• [14:09] Zha Ewry: I'll also point out this: [9]
• [14:09] Zha Ewry: I'm commited to making sure that the process meets our own desires on public, open and transparent
• [14:09] Goldie Katsu: Everyone has an agenda. Even you Morgaine. By moving it to the IETF it means LL is giving up a lot of control on the standard - less control than they have now.
• [14:09] Zha Ewry: The IETF is a well regarded place to do that
• [14:10] Susan Tsuki: the message template description and the event queue is great place to start. Clearly there needs to be a more substantial walk of some of the subsystem data structures,
• [14:10] Zha Ewry: Did someone herd Robo outside the wall?
• [14:10] Morgaine Dinova: Nah, I'm not expecting miracles, and every business has an agenda. :-) But LL are "good guys", so I expect that saying they're working towards "virtual worlds" means more than just working towards a dominant SL.
• [14:10] Comet Gearbox: do that again
• [14:10] Squirrel Wood: what?
• [14:10] Comet Gearbox: force thing
• [14:10] Comet Gearbox: cool
• [14:10] Comet Gearbox: voice changer?
• [14:11] Goldie Katsu: I think it is in their best interest (beyond being good guys) to work towards virtual worlds or LL will become obsolete.
• [14:11] Squirrel Wood: Morphvox
• [14:11] Comet Gearbox: nice
• [14:11] Zero Linden: er...
• [14:11] Squirrel Wood: ya
• [14:11] Zero Linden: sorry there
• [14:11] Latha Serevi: OMG, I just figured out what F2F means. RL bodies in same room. That's sort of kinky and sick.
• [14:11] Goldie Katsu: Or virtual worlds will die out until the next iteration.
• [14:11] Infinity Linden: lol
• [14:11] Goldie Katsu: (or remain niche)
• [14:11] Zha Ewry: sighs
• [14:11] Zha Ewry: I know, real world people talking
• [14:11] Zero Linden: plau
• [14:11] Zero Linden: er
• [14:11] Zha Ewry: What's with that?
• [14:11] Goldie Katsu: I think the MMO designation is wise.
• [14:11] Zero Linden: okay
• [14:11] Zero Linden: we've gone a bit over time her
• [14:11] Zero Linden: here
• [14:11] Susan Tsuki: "The tenets of IBM's new policy are to:
• * Begin or end participation in standards bodies based on the quality and openness of their processes, membership rules, and intellectual property policies. " Oh really? I also have a policy of beginning or ending as the case may be.
• [14:12] Comet Gearbox: bye all
• [14:12] Zero Linden: and I've got some drafts to edit....
• [14:12] Zero Linden: SO
• [14:12] Zero Linden: thanks, all for coming
• [14:12] Goldie Katsu: Thanks Zero
• [14:12] Goldie Katsu: This was informative.
• [14:12] Morgaine Dinova: LOL Susan ;-)
• [14:12] Eddy Stryker: thank you
• [14:12] Susan Tsuki: (was reading from Zha's press release URL above)
• [14:12] Rex Cronon: bye zero, comet
• [14:12] Rob Linden: bye all
• [14:12] Goldie Katsu: And thanks Rob and Infinity
• [14:12] Patnad Babii: thanks alot Zero have a good day
• [14:12] Latha Serevi: ^0^HoOoOoOowls^0^
• [14:12] Rex Cronon: bye rob
• [14:12] Morgaine Dinova: waves bye
• [14:13] Zero Linden: see you all in a month!
• [14:13] Rob Linden: thanks eveyrone for coming....looking forward to discussions on mmox@
• [14:13] Zero Linden: later
• [14:13] Rex Cronon: bye everybody
• [14:13] Zha Ewry: Heh, Susan, it puts us on record on being intereste din open
• [14:13] Infinity Linden: cheers!
• [14:13] Patnad Babii: bye everyone!
• [14:13] Whump Linden: Have a good day folks.
• [14:13] Teravus Ousley: take care
• [14:13] Morgaine Dinova: See you Whump :-)
• [14:13] Teravus Ousley: happy reading
• [14:13] Rex Cronon: have fun
• [14:13] Teravus Ousley: ..
• [14:13] Saijanai Kuhn: lotta fun
• [14:14] Whump Linden: between IETF stuff and hypergrid, I have a lot of reading ahead....
• [14:14] Susan Tsuki: I had to read it twice, Zha, but I understand, good
• [14:14] Teravus Ousley: :D
• [14:14] Whump Linden: Teravus, is trunk stable? I should do an update.
• [14:14] Mirt Tenk: thanks
• [14:14] Susan Tsuki: thanks everyone, back to RL for e
• [14:14] Morgaine Dinova: OK, summarising: we got details of IETF contacts and lists and processes. Almost nothing about the email was explained, so I guess it's "We'll see how it goes". That's about it.
• [14:14] Mirt Tenk: more reading for me too
• [14:15] Teravus Ousley: Seems to be reasonably stable, yes.
• [14:15] Susan Tsuki: me* I have to fix a demo
• [14:15] Teravus Ousley: as of this morning.
• [14:15] Whump Linden: cool
• [14:15] Morgaine Dinova: Take care Susan
• [14:15] Saijanai Kuhn: KK putting transcript up