Re: [mmox] OGP scalability concerns

Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com> Wed, 01 April 2009 22:36 UTC

Return-Path: <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.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 BC5153A6903 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 15:36:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.73
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.73 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.069, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
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 4+TVB4Wx+b7p for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 15:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f165.google.com (mail-ew0-f165.google.com [209.85.219.165]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 231773A67B6 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 15:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy9 with SMTP id 9so288174ewy.37 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=czG/yiJA4SEOOUNNKm9tdT/3KkkZ2NVQvPQYspHBH+E=; b=Q4QWZomrRc30rGZI0di2C4kjXz83WKh1uQIftYN0WJ+Ph2oLJJdq967PneMfqz8d/G 7ZnbNeaoBzfqh0QPHlYXGO2Y2hmP7dtLqh5wS06lV9r6sN57miO4OxVedSx8MjkAavCs HluDWlekP4fK9mq7qpzgwjlV+vaxcgJl4AkBI=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=CK9j/yTk1PL8IP4W107WMnFwtgWHE66nKGTIEbdeUx1WYDI4L/S47lY4jezedGRe9m oIVf2ZDjUvhu+rTWBkEa0xcujEY+O7zwa/zWbk/k4fwbps//aXFc6NfZxeyu5/LowUgS VCsru/OVnUpxTY1ZyMhrzSz0j/elUdQF/wQao=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.28.198 with SMTP id g48mr2823724wea.109.1238625447716; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933D7B692E1B@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <AcmzDFuLPSSoNG5USN2irBnDmPgnbQ==> <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933D7B692E1B@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 23:37:27 +0100
Message-ID: <e0b04bba0904011537s116dd1fbud1e149bd9ae71507@mail.gmail.com>
From: Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
To: "Hurliman, John" <john.hurliman@intel.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6db5c0cd2299e046685f54a
Cc: "mmox@ietf.org" <mmox@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [mmox] OGP scalability concerns
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: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:36:29 -0000

On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Hurliman, John <john.hurliman@intel.com>wrote;wrote:

A few days ago I posted an e-mail highlighting my concerns with the
> architecture of OGP. I'm not sure if there was an implicit agreement from
> the OGP authors or if the e-mail was lost in the flood. I'm reposting in a
> new thread because I want to make sure I have a proper understanding of the
> architecture.
>
>
John, I don't think that it indicates implicit agreement nor that your post
was lost in the flood.  It's more a reflection of the fact that we've not
had a single comment from OGP designers at all here since the BoF, on
*any*topic. :-)

I'm not sure where they've got to, but they're not engaging in technical
discussions with the list at this time.  You haven't missed any responses,
afaik. ;-)

Morgaine.









On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Hurliman, John <john.hurliman@intel.com>wrote;wrote:

> A few days ago I posted an e-mail highlighting my concerns with the
> architecture of OGP. I'm not sure if there was an implicit agreement from
> the OGP authors or if the e-mail was lost in the flood. I'm reposting in a
> new thread because I want to make sure I have a proper understanding of the
> architecture.
>
>
> >*      Indirectly, it highlights that the Agent Domain model does not
> >have a solution to the problem of accessing worlds with which there is
> >no trust agreement.  People will want to enter arbitrary worlds, and
> >therefore that restriction is inadequate.
> >*      There will be millions of worlds in an Internet-scale metaverse,
> >which makes the concept of interop through trust agreements far too
> >narrow.  Trust loses its meaning entirely when scaled to millions,
> >becoming mere paperwork or "security theater".
>
> This is, in my opinion, the fundamental flaw in OGP. Explicit trust maps
> (whitelists) work great when IBM wants to define policy to connect to the
> Linden Lab grid, but has no meaning and no hope of scaling when you talk
> about defining trust for millions of simulation grids and millions (or at
> least thousands) of identity providers. This is the primary reason that
> Intel and many members of the OpenSimulator/OpenMetaverse community have not
> considered OGP as a strong proposal for virtual world interoperability. If
> this understanding is not accurate, it would be helpful if an OGP author
> could step in and clear up the confusion.
>
> John
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> mmox@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>