Re: [mmox] Global Object Identification

Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@hp.com> Sun, 05 July 2009 17:01 UTC

Return-Path: <mike.dickson@hp.com>
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 E642F3A6A01 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 10:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.539
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 hdeiXDrHJYUV for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 10:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from g1t0028.austin.hp.com (g1t0028.austin.hp.com [15.216.28.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2401F3A691A for <mmox@ietf.org>; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 10:01:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from g5t0012.atlanta.hp.com (g5t0012.atlanta.hp.com [15.192.0.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by g1t0028.austin.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A82AC1C188; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 17:02:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.139] (conr-adsl-209-169-71-194.consolidated.net [209.169.71.194]) by g5t0012.atlanta.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C2CBD1001D; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 17:02:03 +0000 (UTC)
From: Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@hp.com>
To: Tommi Laukkanen <tommi.s.e.laukkanen@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ad15b9430907040531j18caf370y2a9b400ace86394a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ad15b9430906190018g6e585f0ei8fc83c073056a7bd@mail.gmail.com> <3a880e2c0906191408m66e87830w6094987335fb6c16@mail.gmail.com> <1245446801.9567.12.camel@mdickson-laptop> <4A3E1A16.2070509@dcrocker.net> <1245601755.7174.3.camel@mdickson-laptop> <c7bcbd620906210956l1a05fb81xb3dea005c902a564@mail.gmail.com> <ad15b9430907040531j18caf370y2a9b400ace86394a@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Bladesystems Infrastructure R&D
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:01:57 -0500
Message-Id: <1246813317.4532.48.camel@mdickson-laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "mmox@ietf.org" <mmox@ietf.org>, Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com>, "dcrocker@bbiw.net" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Subject: Re: [mmox] Global Object Identification
X-BeenThere: mmox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mike.dickson@hp.com
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: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:01:41 -0000

Cost for the handle system is non-linear. Similar to DNS.  Once you
register a domain how many things get put under it is your own business.
The cost for the registration is pretty minimal.  Primarily to fund the
maintenance of the root servers.

I like the handle system because its been around for a while, proven to
scale reasonably well, etc.  There's support for metadata on the objects
referenced also so it also partly addresses what "type" of thing is
being referenced and what can/should be done with it.

Mike

On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 12:31 +0000, Tommi Laukkanen wrote:
> Hello
> 
> I gather from this and previous discussions that there are two wide
> spread systems for global object indetification:
> 
> 1) Handle System (from CNRI) - Global identifier to service resolving
> network in analogy with DNS. Adding your data type to the network has
> a cost. How does the cost scale with number of objects?
> 
> 2) Extensible Resource Identifier (XRI) - The url for XRD document
> containing service locations can be calculated from XRI identifier.
> 
> I guess these two approaches are in theory the two viable ways to do
> global identifiers. Either build global resolving / register network
> or include enough information in the identifier to resolve url
> directly from it.
> 
> Are there other viable implementations? If not should we dive deeper
> in comparing these two alternatives?
> 
> -tommi