Re: [mmox] OGP scalability concerns

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
> mmox@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox