Re: [mmox] Global Object Identification

Dave CROCKER <> Mon, 06 July 2009 20:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3F7B3A6D3F for <>; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 13:16:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.442
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.157, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OqeV5o2Ht1aL for <>; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 13:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:0:ffff:4834:7147]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB09F3A68A2 for <>; Mon, 6 Jul 2009 13:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n66KGJDZ024860 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 6 Jul 2009 13:16:25 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:16:21 -0700
From: Dave CROCKER <>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <1245446801.9567.12.camel@mdickson-laptop> <> <1245601755.7174.3.camel@mdickson-laptop> <> <> <1246813317.4532.48.camel@mdickson-laptop>
In-Reply-To: <1246813317.4532.48.camel@mdickson-laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0 ( []); Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:16:25 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [mmox] Global Object Identification
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Massively Multi-participant Online Games and Applications <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:16:07 -0000

Mike Dickson wrote:
> I like the handle system because its been around for a while, proven to
> scale reasonably well, etc.  

So, the metric I use for scaling, when talking about Internet standards, is many
millions of independent users and at least many thousands of independent
administrations, all participating in the same system.

In other words, a single integrated service that is operated by a very large
number of independent groups and that is used by a couple of orders of magnitude
more of independent groups and people.

I know there are large handle systems, but I don't know of any that satisfy
these criteria.  (By "don't know" I am asking to be educated; I truly don't know
that much about the range of installations for handle.)

For a system that does not already satisfy this requirement, the burden is to
explain why the world should believe that the system will be able to.  And
again, I mean that as a serious request, not an implied criticism or dismissal.


   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking