Talk:LSL Protocol/Restrained Love Open Relay Group/ORG Requirements

While I preferred the name !x-tensions (yes, I liked the pun), !x-orgversions is fine by me. I am not sure what the version of ORG will relate to, but it won't hurt to put it into the spec.

The requirements on relays are not onerous. I am for this and, if approved, will withdraw the !x-tensions proposal. --Chloe1982 Constantine 13:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Being the one originating this proposal, it is obvious I vote for it too. Now, why voting for this? It is more than the requirements per se that are important, but acting the principle that

1. ORG does not only proposes extensions but also fixes some breaches in Marine's spec
2. everything ORG proposes, being the optional extensions or the fixes in the core specification has to be versioned
3. versions of core specification are necessary for the same reasons as the RLVR spec are versioned. Moreover, if Marine ever reads those fixes, maybe... maybe some day she will fix her spec, and then we will be able to remove this from ORG.

For the future of the core requirements, sometimes I wonder if I won't rewrite the RLVR protocol from scratch, making it both easier to read and more precise than it is now, while preserving compatibility (someone pointed to me that Marine's spec actually left a lot more implicit things than I thought: it is not even clear that every "@" command should be acknowledged, actually! Neither are the meanings of "ko" and "ok" explained).

--Satomi Ahn 09:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

All looks good from here, no objections or complaints... rock on.

--Ilana Debevec 18:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest handling the "unrestrict when out of range" problem differently. Susan Daviau currently provides a proprietary extended mechanism for restricting someone who may go out of shout range. This sort of extension requires a communications mechanism that is not restricted by llShout distances - email, or http requests for instance provide cross-sim control.

While we currently don't have any such extension planned, a non proprietary extension of this nature might be useful in the future. Furthermore, it we want to get Susan Daviau on board (has anyone contacted her?) it might be good to make org extensions compatible with her products.

I am not sure how to reword the specification exactly.

I also am somewhat in favor of making the range check a function that the relay wearer can trigger, rather than automatic function. For instance, I might wish to allow someone to restrict me with a portable control device and wish to honor the restrictions even if they go out of range. Making the out of range check more interactive and manually triggered would make this possible.

Nano Siemens 00:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)