Re: [mmox] Global Object Identification

Mike Dickson <> Sun, 05 July 2009 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FCB93A6C1E for <>; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 12:04:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.392
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.392 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.107, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qOXDtZNDuO8Q for <>; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 12:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D5A13A6B55 for <>; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 12:04:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE1933823F; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 19:04:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4B1AE10020; Sun, 5 Jul 2009 19:04:42 +0000 (UTC)
From: Mike Dickson <>
To: Dave CROCKER <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <1245446801.9567.12.camel@mdickson-laptop> <> <1245601755.7174.3.camel@mdickson-laptop> <> <> <1246813317.4532.48.camel@mdickson-laptop> <>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Bladesystems Infrastructure R&D
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:04:35 -0500
Message-Id: <1246820675.4532.55.camel@mdickson-laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 19:04:19 -0000

On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 17:50 +0000, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> 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.

I can't think of alot of "systems" that would satisfy your definition
(other than perhaps the current web infrastructure w/DNS).  That being
said the factsheet from the handle site has some details.

> 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.

Given the details in the fact sheet I'd say the handle system satisfies
that criteria. If you don't believe so I'd like to understand what you
think is missing.  

BTW, I don't actually work on/with the handle system.  I was aware of it
and it's the best example I know of that handles very large scale
resource resolution across the web.

> 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.

Well, as I said I think as the fact sheet indicates IMO it already does.
if you don't think so it would be valuable to hear why. And to put
forward and alternative that you think is representative of your