Re: [mmox] Global Object Identification

Dave CROCKER <> Sun, 05 July 2009 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB0E3A6B88 for <>; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 10:49:47 -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=-0.158, BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EixMzp4WWEqU for <>; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 10:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1:76:0:ffff:4834:7147]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 427D43A6846 for <>; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 10:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n65Ho2h3006763 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 5 Jul 2009 10:50:07 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 10:50:01 -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 ( []); Sun, 05 Jul 2009 10:50:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 11:01:15 -0700
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: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:49:47 -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