<div>I understand your view point. I would still want to present my case in more detail:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As I see it ENET has a well working and widely adopted open source implementation for problem area which is particularly challenging for virtual worlds. Standard would be a valuable for vws as it would allow for interoperation. The challenge in forming such a standard is to get all parties to agree on the details. In the past discussions ENET has been often referred to as working implementation which could be acceptable for many players. The only thing needed for proposing ENET as a solution is documentation of the in wire protocol which would allow writing down the details on the standard.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Virtual world standardization requires many other areas to be covered in addition to transport layer but transport layer is the missing link and a key success factor in my opinion. It is also something that requires special competence and most stake holders do not believe that it is feasible to try and engineer such technology from scratch.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If such standard would come to be it would not need to restrict ENET if you would not want ENET to stay conformant. At starting point we would still have a well working transport layer implementation where rest of the virtual world specific functionality could lean on.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div>Tommi Laukkanen<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Lee Salzman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lsalzman1@cox.net">lsalzman1@cox.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">
<div bgcolor="#000000" text="#c0c0c0">I think the particular strength of ENet is that it is a small library of code that is free to change as one pleases for various goals. I think a standard or otherwise rigid specification is antagonistic to this goal. ENet is not a perfect or all-encompassing library, so the main effect would be to just enshrine its faults irrevocably on paper, and also that it would create more hassle for the one developer (singular) of ENet than it is actually worth. :)<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>Lee</font>
<div class="im"><br><br>On 10/24/2010 07:29 AM, Tommi S.e. Laukkanen wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"><pre>This particular case I have in mind is protocol for virtual worlds in IEEE.
Best regards,
Tommi Laukkanen
On 24.10.2010, at 14.58, Lee Salzman <a href="mailto:lsalzman1@cox.net" target="_blank"><lsalzman1@cox.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite"><pre>... Why?
On 10/24/2010 02:44 AM, Tommi S.e. Laukkanen wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite"><pre>Hi
Would it be possible that one of the ENET developers would write description document of the enet in wire protocol and algorithms involved so ENET could be proposed as a protocol and implementation library to standards?
Best regards,
Tommi Laukkanen
</pre></blockquote></blockquote><br></blockquote><br></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>ENet-discuss mailing list<br><a href="mailto:ENet-discuss@cubik.org">ENet-discuss@cubik.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss</a><br><br></blockquote></div><br>