Re: [mmox] OGP scalability concerns

"Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <> Wed, 01 April 2009 23:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73F813A6B92 for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:52:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.373
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.373 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.089, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qne5EAiNgrEk for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549F73A6A28 for <>; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B5923DBC06B; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <>
From: "Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <>
To: "Hurliman, John" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 16:53:26 -0700
References: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [mmox] OGP scalability concerns
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: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 23:52:29 -0000

On Apr 1, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Hurliman, John 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.

i would guess the solution would be to have a promiscuous agent domain  
that has a "i will trust all worlds" settings. i think this is a  
limitation of the implementation, not the architecture.

>> *	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".

+1. what's your suggestion?

> 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