IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mmox] OGP scalability concerns

Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com> Fri, 03 April 2009 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <jwatte@gmail.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 B843A28C2AA for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.545
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.545 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.054, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 TOqQ4u4CvsZA for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:23:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.231]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C9A3A68F6 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:23:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id k40so1085929rvb.49 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:24:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=LVbpTWCk9HXP8opEV9JGt2WIYdL4/fwuU8Cxm+o5Wa8=; b=v7He5n7KcGf8+wPR1VmHeYzHwzSFdq9/Q6R+xyi5q2sZ+VJ8Bfa5eK/EoLgeia7wVC scvF+MReRzCiZ96U8wwTW5SocA+xPRseXpR/tRl62ID4Ckf1ZSBkJ5xNSJ0g3KGC455R CfMADcHrzkl3ox8chyCUfPRnSGFMKP5b2DcZ4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=h8mI1VfAd2PAGdHWPRmV22ozKxCWvqRQrmKFBh9czFSIirG1PuCPjIMZyQ9iMz9sPM xnOUOulYQkT0dS29eC+MabUh+YSqa6/MPR0UoVl/oNq8seujyrKX43EC+8hZ7erXzM9a XYcXCYF0qb6rsJSm/gIbNAMBteLBRa+h88kVk=
Received: by 10.141.193.9 with SMTP id v9mr649828rvp.120.1238779490054; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:24:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?10.10.111.233? (smtp.forterrainc.com [208.64.184.34]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k41sm7620182rvb.36.2009.04.03.10.24.49 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:24:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <49D64660.4060900@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 10:24:48 -0700
From: Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christian Scholz <cs@comlounge.net>
References: <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933D7B692E1B@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com> <CD02023C-3E7B-4E76-8429-11035C827E53@lindenlab.com> <f0b9e3410904011701i2ccb03d4r1b48d33cfe3988ea@mail.gmail.com> <49D40A06.7030708@gmail.com> <8D793BD8-6AA2-49C7-96EF-435A5B449AA6@lindenlab.com> <49D4295C.2020502@gmail.com> <52A129B8-3FC6-486A-99A5-C00BED8BDE08@lindenlab.com> <49D4E5AF.2030301@gmail.com> <49D51A7D.8000104@comlounge.net> <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933D7B6934A3@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com> <49D52DCD.2000806@comlounge.net> <49D531DA.4080006@gmail.com> <49D533EA.4010301@comlounge.net> <49D54648.4020007@gmail.com> <49D6284D.8050000@comlounge.net>
In-Reply-To: <49D6284D.8050000@comlounge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:23:52 -0000

Christian Scholz wrote:
> So lets look at the spec as it is right now:
> http://tools.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hammer-oauth-02.txt
>
> And maybe we should use the same terminology because I might simply be
> confused ;-)
>   

That is a re-wording and clarification of the version I had previously read.

I guess the question then is whether service provider implementations 
require the callback URL in their implementation, or whether they'll be 
OK with a NULL callback URL. I know of at least one service provider 
that has a form submission to obtain an application key where the 
callback URL cannot be left empty, but maybe it can be redirected to 
some URI that does nothing.

Regarding service discovery: Does anyone want to start talking about XRDS?
http://xrds-simple.net/core/1.0/

Sincerely,

jw

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email