Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the Generic Client model
Christian Scholz <cs@comlounge.net> Fri, 20 March 2009 13:59 UTC
Return-Path: <cs@comlounge.net>
X-Original-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B21EF28C15F for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.165
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.165 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.833, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_36=0.6, WHOIS_NETSOLPR=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lcGKIwVpFysK for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from post.comlounge.net (post.comlounge.net [85.214.59.142]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DCCB3A6767 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:59:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by post.comlounge.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83F301CE003C; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:00:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from post.comlounge.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (h1346004.stratoserver.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bXofcO03s9OT; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:00:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.178.34] (p5B395F30.dip.t-dialin.net [91.57.95.48]) by post.comlounge.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDEB61CE0038; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:00:15 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <49C3A16D.5020300@comlounge.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:00:13 +0100
From: Christian Scholz <cs@comlounge.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Macintosh/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Frisby, Adam" <adam@deepthink.com.au>
References: <e0b04bba0903120735s5311a922ybbc40a30433166a3@mail.gmail.com> <e0b04bba0903130451v2d33f9ebxfa3b337513bf286c@mail.gmail.com> <49BB0C46.8070809@gmail.com> <e0b04bba0903140305ocdbef86kcec140371dabf00b@mail.gmail.com> <49BC08DC.2010503@gmail.com> <e0b04bba0903150441y2b0037c7ne33a7ef6c883eb37@mail.gmail.com> <49BD6123.2080703@gmail.com> <e0b04bba0903151557u5312299ehe0a548f5790fb7a5@mail.gmail.com> <49BDD5F1.5090303@gmail.com> <e0b04bba0903160515p649b378endc877170ed2dd641@mail.gmail.com> <e0b04bba0903160544s4822dc0qcc71a4e0ba952486@mail.gmail.com> <49BE6BDC.6000501@gmail.com> <63FAD4F222230A4EA79DE9E8BE66473518EEDD19@winxbeus19.exchange.xchg>
In-Reply-To: <63FAD4F222230A4EA79DE9E8BE66473518EEDD19@winxbeus19.exchange.xchg>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: MMOX-IETF <mmox@ietf.org>, Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the Generic Client model
X-BeenThere: mmox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Massively Multi-participant Online Games and Applications <mmox.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox>, <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmox>
List-Post: <mailto:mmox@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox>, <mailto:mmox-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:59:38 -0000
Hi! Frisby, Adam wrote: > I've been avoiding this list lately since I've not had the time to > read the (very) significant number of posts made in recent history, > however I am going to chime in here again and say we should be > utilizing URI-style constructs as much as possible. +1 > I believe we [may] have a rough consensus that there are elements we > want to standardise, this being authentication and identity circuits. > However there is no reason why the client<->region connection needs > to be fixed as a specific protocol, simply the result from the > authentication mechanism can return a URI. That might be bascially what I am proposing in the draft I've written: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-cscholz-mmox-architecture-00.txt Basically what it means is the following: 1. Client wants to connect to region X 2. Client retrieves the XRDS file of region X (stored under a URL) 3. Client checks the XRDS file for services it understands An XRDS file basically stores types of services as URIs and attached the service endpoints to it (again URIs), e.g. <Service> <Type>http://ns.opensocial.org/2008/opensocial/people</Type> <URI>http://api.myspace.com/v2/people/</URI> </Service> This would say that it can find the OpenSocial profile API at http://api.myspace.com/v2/people This format is already in use for OpenID and the experimental OAuth discovery. At the IETF meeting there should also be some talk about service discovery in general (I heard Eran was asked to talk about it at the App Area meeting). > > For instance, > > MMOX defines a auth protocol, client makes attempt to connect to a > environment via this auth protocol, is returned a URI with > "mxp://ip/regionID/", or a "olive://ip/region", or a > "secondlife://region/x/y/z". (or perhaps a combination of the above > for servers capable of handling more than one [eg opensim].) So in this case with XRDS you would simply provide 2 <Service> elements. > This then allows others to pitch client<->region standards and let > the market weed out what is deemed to be effective / noneffective. It > would still then be entirely in the remit of this group to propose a > standard for the above too - however by utilizing the URI schema, it > does not force implementers into using it (only recommends it as a > 'common reference point'). +1. And you are flexible to exchange, add or remove protocols in questions whenever you need to. It also would allow us to start with some bits of interoperability which we can expand on later (e.g. 2D realm with identification, profile, friends, IM, inventory management for now, 3D stuff later). -- Christian > > Adam > >> -----Original Message----- From: mmox-bounces@ietf.org >> [mailto:mmox-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Jon Watte Sent: Monday, >> 16 March 2009 8:10 AM To: Morgaine Cc: MMOX-IETF Subject: Re: >> [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the Generic Client model >> >> Morgaine wrote: >>> The goal is simply to get us beyond the current pro-client/anti- >> client >>> discussion, which like almost all polarized pro/anti discussions, >>> is rarely constructive. >> The reason we ended up here was because I said OGP will not be >> widely adopted outside the Second Life / OpenSim sphere, because it >> requires significant engineering in the client/server connection to >> achieve any kind of interop through OGP, for any kind of >> cross-technology interop. In the OGP model, currently, if Open Sim >> wants to connect to OLIVE, they need to implement the OLIVE >> protocol. If OLIVE wants to connect to Metaverse, they need to >> implement the Metaverse protocol. I consider that broken. You >> suggest that this problem will be solved by engineering a standard >> client/server protocol. I point at the history of synchronous >> interactive online systems (note: web is not synchronous, and >> hardly interactive), and say that I don't believe such a standard >> is feasible (politically or technically). Thus, I believe that an >> "interop" protocol that requires all technology clients to be able >> to talk to all other technology clients to not actually deliver >> feasible interop (nevermind that it doesn't solve the world mash-up >> problem). While there may be, in your words, "generic" clients >> within a specific technology domain, that doesn't mean much for >> cross-technology interop. >> >> Note: because words seem to be mis-understood, in the above >> comments, when I say "technology," I mean "virtual world platform >> DNA" -- Multiverse is a technology; OLIVE is a technology, Second >> Life is a technology, Unreal 3 is a technology. When it comes to >> client/server, interop between different worlds using the same >> technology is easy (at least if the technology makes it so); it's >> interop between different technologies that needs standardization >> to happen. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> jw >> >> _______________________________________________ mmox mailing list >> mmox@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox > _______________________________________________ mmox mailing list > mmox@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox -- Christian Scholz Homepage: http://comlounge.net COM.lounge GmbH blog: http://mrtopf.de/blog Hanbrucher Str. 33 Skype: HerrTopf 52064 Aachen Video Blog: http://comlounge.tv Tel: +49 241 400 730 0 E-Mail cs@comlounge.net Fax: +49 241 979 00 850 IRC: MrTopf, Tao_T neuer Podcast: Der OpenWeb-Podcast (http://openweb-podcast.de) new podcast: Data Without Borders (http://datawithoutborders.net)
- [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Rob Lanphier
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Ann Otoole
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Ann Otoole
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Mystical Demina
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Charles Krinke
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Bill Humphries
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Charles Krinke
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario David W Levine
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Charles Krinke
- [mmox] My reading of draft-lentczner-ogp-base-00 Latha Serevi
- Re: [mmox] My reading of draft-lentczner-ogp-base… Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Charles Krinke
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario eh2th-mmox
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Mystical Demina
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Ann Otoole
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario eh2th-mmox
- [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the Gener… Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Mystical Demina
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Charles Krinke
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Kajikawa Jeremy
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Charles Krinke
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Kajikawa Jeremy
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Frisby, Adam
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Charles Krinke
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Mark Lentczner
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Charles Krinke
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Jon Watte
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Morgaine
- Re: [mmox] 3-world OGP interop scenario Charles Krinke
- Re: [mmox] One more time: The LESS model vs the G… Christian Scholz