[x3d-public] X3D and VRML for multiuser worlds

[John Carlson]

What I was going to do is try to get DIS from GitHub and DIS from X_ITE to
talk to each other.

John
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 1:08 PM Christoph Valentin <
christoph.valentin at gmx.at> wrote:

> ok
>
> let me repeat your proposal:
>
> >>>>> Of the published work available in that regard, we have BS
> Collaborate, DIS, and the Draft X3D Specification for NetworkSensor. I
> think the first step would be to take these, see what they have in common,
> and go from there for deeper analyses.
>
> I think everybody agrees.
>
> So what would be the very first step (before the first step)? Assign
> responsibilities? Create a Wiki? Ask for official decision? Just do it?
> Who? What? When? Create an official backlog? Use the S&P-ARK?
>
> kind regards
> Christoph
>
> --
> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android Mobiltelefon mit GMX Mail
> gesendet.
> Am 09.01.21, 07:40 schrieb Christoph Valentin <christoph.valentin at gmx.at>:
>
>> Not much,
>>
>> 1) It's another use case, which has proven it's usefulness during
>> SrrTrains v0.01:
>>      - Customized Client Side Calculations
>>          ( sent to x3d-public in January 2014:
>> https://areasharpa.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/smuos_03_sema_2018_04_27.pdf
>> )
>>
>> 2) And an idea (which is not yet settled).
>>      - idea is to have two levels of identification:
>>         identify the sensor by "streamName" + "networkSensorId"
>>               (BS Collaborate: only "streamName"
>>                 Octaga: only "networkSensorId")
>>
>>                 1) the stream = the model = the real life entity
>> e.g. "car"
>>                 2) the sensor nodes themselves
>>                               e.g. "steering", "motor", "doors"
>>
>>
>> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 09. Januar 2021 um 03:59 Uhr
>> *Von:* "GL" <info at 3dnetproductions.com>
>> *An:* "'X3D Graphics public mailing list'" <x3d-public at web3d.org>
>> *Betreff:* Re: [x3d-public] X3D and VRML for multiuser worlds
>>
>> I am not sure what results you are referring to. Did I miss something?
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* x3d-public [mailto:x3d-public-bounces at web3d.org] *On Behalf Of *Christoph
>> Valentin
>> *Sent:* Friday, January 8, 2021 9:21 PM
>> *To:* 'X3D Graphics public mailing list'
>> *Subject:* Re: [x3d-public] Re: X3D and VRML for multiuser worlds
>>
>>
>>
>> so basically you want to ignore my results?
>>
>> --
>> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android Mobiltelefon mit GMX Mail
>> gesendet.
>>
>> Am 09.01.21, 01:07 schrieb GL <info at 3dnetproductions.com>:
>>
>> Christoph,
>>
>> Thank you for the clarifications and your general dedication. I believe
>> that little misunderstandings should be addressed before they snowball into
>> bigger misconceptions.
>>
>>
>>
>> > If we specify a general Network Sensor API, then content can run
>> > with any X3D Player that supports the Network Sensor API.
>>
>> If you read again my last paragraph, I try to make a distinction between
>> a multiuser client and a X3D player. In other words, the player is not
>> necessarily the client. It appears to be a common misconception that the
>> X3D player must also be the MU client, while in truth it really doesn't
>> have to. For the reasons previously stated, I tend to prefer that the
>> player does not in fact act as the client.
>>
>>
>> > However, if I use the X3Daemon Client API, then I MUST use the X3Daemon
>> > Server, because the protocol is proprietary.
>>
>>
>> That is precisely why I am here. I do NOT want the application protocol
>> to be proprietary. And the fact that we still don't have a standard keeps
>> me from moving forward, because any development efforts I make may someday
>> have to be rewritten once we do have a standard. IOW, I am not a big fan of
>> reworking systems. I'd rather use open standards as early in the process as
>> possible to facilitate interoperability later.
>>
>>
>> > If the protocol was specified, then I could use ANY
>> > server with the X3Daemon Client.
>>
>>
>> Ideally, systems could interoperate, though there are other factors to
>> consider. For example avatars must login to authenticate their identity and
>> assets, consisting of information that may or may not be available to a
>> third party server. But yes, you get the general idea.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > It is not sufficient to specify the
>> > fields and the behaviour of the NetworkSensor node. ...,
>> > but I had the feeling that you want to
>> > omit the specification of the protocol.
>>
>>
>> Read again, I was referring specifically to network protocols. Still, at
>> this early stage, I feel it may be a little premature to get too involved
>> with an application protocol, that until we get a better grasp of what the
>> requirements will be. For this reason, I am of the opinion that fields and
>> events should be specified first. Just so that we have something to build
>> upon.
>>
>> Of the published work available in that regard, we have BS Collaborate,
>> DIS, and the Draft X3D Specification for NetworkSensor. I think the first
>> step would be to take these, see what they have in common, and go from
>> there for deeper analyses.
>>
>> Once we have that settled, IMO, only then should we turn to discuss an
>> application layer protocol and its ramifications. GL
>>
>>
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: x3d-public [mailto:x3d-public-bounces at web3d.org] On Behalf Of
>> > Christoph Valentin
>> > Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 5:09 PM
>> > To: X3D Graphics public mailing list
>> > Subject: Re: [x3d-public] X3D and VRML for multiuser worlds
>> >
>> > Dear Gina Lauren
>> >
>> > Please find some feed back *inline*.
>> >
>> > Generally, please do not judge too hard, I'm not a native speaker and
>> still
>> > some of my wordings do not fit to the real intention.
>> >
>> > Kind regards,
>> > Christoph
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >You want to lock in your users. That's not the spirit of open source.
>> >
>> > For once I was beginning to open up about the inner workings of a
>> multiuser
>> > system, but surprisingly, you apparently don't want to hear about it.
>> It is
>> > difficult to talk about open standards for a NSN if we can't refer to
>> > actual implementations. It's not like there are a lot of them around..
>> > [CV]: I should not have written this. However, I was a little bit
>> > impatient, because I have been preaching for years and years that the
>> > protocol itself must be specified. It is not sufficient to specify the
>> > fields and the behaviour of the NetworkSensor node. Maybe I did not read
>> > your words sufficiently thoroughly, but I had the feeling that you want
>> to
>> > omit the specification of the protocol.
>> >
>> > Also, who said anything about open source being a requirement? I was
>> > actually volunteering closed source information for the benefit of an
>> open
>> > standard. If you can't see that I was actually "giving" something to the
>> > community.. then perhaps I am wasting my time???
>> > [CV]: Here I used "open source" and meant "open protocols", sorry, my
>> > mistake. And, yes, I also "gave" a lot. Using too much time for my
>> hobbies,
>> > was one major reason, why my wife left us in 2015 (afterwards the
>> SrrTrains
>> > v0.01 project fell into hibernation mode due to lack of resources).
>> >
>> > Finally, if you would like to discuss an application layer protocol,
>> maybe
>> > look into work that has been done in the past referred to as vrtp and
>> x3dp.
>> > Not much, but a starting point. So far I have only heard vague comments
>> > about SCTP, UDP, etc. (see below)
>> > [CV]: I am sure that many people have contributed many parts of the
>> puzzle.
>> > Now we need somebody, who fits all together (that's not me, is it?)
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > [CV]: I never suggested to specifiy the transport protocol (http, rtp,
>> > > sctp, tcp, msrp, sip, xmpp, ........).
>> >
>> > hhhmmm.. I'm confused, what is this about???
>> > [CV]: Let's assume, we specify an "Application Layer Protocol" (let's
>> call
>> > it ALP in the sense of a "working title"). Probably the ALP will
>> consist of
>> > the definition of a few PDUs (e.g. in XML, JSON, YAML or similar
>> syntax).
>> > Now we have to define, how the PDUs have to be transmitted over the
>> > network. Will they be sent as payload in http messages (in the body)?
>> Will
>> > they be sent as payload in SIP messages (in the body)? Will they be sent
>> > directly over tcp connections?
>> > To get historically: at the beginning of the IETF they had a great
>> > movement. You could get T-Shirts with the meme "IP over everything". IP
>> > should connect any network with any network, building the
>> Inter-network. So
>> > they had to write one RFC for each L2 protocol in order to specify, how
>> IP
>> > has to be transported over any L2 link/network.
>> > I am dreaming of an "ALP over everything" movement.
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >[CV]: SCTP and UDP are members of the TCP/IP protocol family. UDP is as
>> > >old as TCP, just simpler. SCTP is younger. It tries to merge advantages
>> > >of both TCP and UDP and was originally invented to transport SS7
>> protocols
>> > >(SIGTRAN). SCTP supports 64k streams per association, what perfectly
>> fits
>> > >to our needs, imho
>> >
>> > Why are you trying to lecture me about network protocols? And what is it
>> > exactly that you are saying or not saying, I find rather perplexing and
>> > fail to see the relevancy. Let's keep going...
>> > [CV]: I thought you wrote "SCTP is not TCP/IP". I want to stress that
>> SCTP
>> > actually IS TCP/IP
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >[CV]: Actually I suggested to specifiy ONE AND ONLY ONE application
>> layer
>> > protocol,
>> >
>> > No-one is questioning this as far as I know. Isn't that precisely what
>> we
>> > are trying to do?
>> > Why are you augmenting this in my comments?
>> >
>> > [CV]: (see above) Maybe I did not read your words sufficiently
>> thoroughly,
>> > but I had the feeling that you want to omit the specification of the
>> > protocol.
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >[CV]: The API (i.e Network Sensor) must be specified to run ONE content
>> > with ANY X3D Player.
>> >
>> > Let's be careful here. The X3D player does not necessarily need to have
>> > agency over the application protocol. For example the X3Daemon client
>> > (sorry to bring it up) is entirely separate from the player other than
>> for
>> > interpreting ECMAScripts and rendering the results to screen. IOW, the
>> > X3Daemon client can theoretically run in any X3D player, regardless of
>> > internal multiuser coding, as long as ECMAScript (JavaScript) is
>> supported.
>> > This makes it very easy for authors to script avatar and object
>> behaviors,
>> > since it provides direct access to X3D nodes. It is also a reason why we
>> > need to define a NetworkSensor node as part of the X3D standard.
>> > [CV]: That's exactly what I am saying: you specified your X3Daemon
>> client
>> > API, so a content that uses that API, can theoretically run with ANY X3D
>> > Player (that the X3Daemon client supports). If we specify a general
>> Network
>> > Sensor API, then content can run with any X3D Player that supports the
>> > Network Sensor API.
>> > However, if I use the X3Daemon Client API, then I MUST use the X3Daemon
>> > Server, because the protocol is proprietary. If the protocol was
>> specified,
>> > then I could use ANY server with the X3Daemon Client. It's similar with
>> BS
>> > Contact and BS Collaborate.
>> > Most customers are very sensitive about getting locked in. No matter if
>> > open source or closed source. We (my employer) made this experience with
>> > railway operators, too.
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> >
>> > GL
>> >
>> > ________________________________________________________
>> > * * * Interactive Multimedia - Internet Management * * *
>> > * * Virtual Reality -- Application Programming * *
>> > * 3D Net Productions 3dnetproductions.com *
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> x3d-public mailing list
>> x3d-public at web3d.org
>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>>
>> _______________________________________________ x3d-public mailing list
>> x3d-public at web3d.org
>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>> _______________________________________________ x3d-public mailing list
>> x3d-public at web3d.org
>> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> x3d-public mailing list
> x3d-public at web3d.org
> http://web3d.org/mailman/listinfo/x3d-public_web3d.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://web3d.org/pipermail/x3d-public_web3d.org/attachments/20210110/78b1dbde/attachment-0001.html>