Re: [mmox] OGP scalability concerns

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