Re: [mmox] OGP scalability concerns

"Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <infinity@lindenlab.com> Thu, 02 April 2009 00:05 UTC

Return-Path: <infinity@lindenlab.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 E3EC93A6B48 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.371
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.371 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.088, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 FbjqkGUdQuOz for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:05:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tammy.lindenlab.com (tammy.lindenlab.com [64.154.223.128]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CAD7D3A67D4 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:05:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from regression.lindenlab.com (regression.lindenlab.com [10.1.16.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tammy.lindenlab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7BCE3DBC446; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <15D13F31-B787-4FE5-AEF0-B45F7AB4CCDB@lindenlab.com>
From: "Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity)" <infinity@lindenlab.com>
To: Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e0b04bba0904011537s116dd1fbud1e149bd9ae71507@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-9-478094337
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3)
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:06:55 -0700
References: <AcmzDFuLPSSoNG5USN2irBnDmPgnbQ==><62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933D7B692E1B@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com> <e0b04bba0904011537s116dd1fbud1e149bd9ae71507@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3)
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: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:05:57 -0000

sheesh. you miss one awg meeting and you're branded a deserter!

but yes... Robla, Zero and I spent most of our week last week at the  
IETF meeting. fwiw... we had more to chat about there than MMOX, which  
is why we weren't online much in the latter part of the week. And...  
being gone from the office for a week allows a bunch of stuff to pile  
up, which is why i've been very nearly completely unreachable (mea  
culpa.) I suspect the situation is radically similar for Zero.

-cheers
-opt 5

On Apr 1, 2009, at 3:37 PM, Morgaine wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Hurliman, John <john.hurliman@intel.com 
> > 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:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> mmox@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox