Re: [mmox] User Accounts / "Object" Transfer.

Gareth Nelson <gareth@litesim.com> Thu, 19 February 2009 02:06 UTC

Return-Path: <gareth@litesim.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 CB4A43A69C1 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:06:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 BfYvMWAboJn0 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:06:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com (rv-out-0506.google.com [209.85.198.231]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29DBA3A67F1 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:06:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id g9so57130rvb.5 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:06:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.248.15 with SMTP id v15mr135337rvh.165.1235009203309; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:06:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <499CA6DA.2010003@gmail.com>
References: <mailman.11.1234814402.16516.mmox@ietf.org> <27a487810902170721m31a157b1oed853cdd9cc6e500@mail.gmail.com> <548919.2383.qm@web82607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <1234917818.6664.51.camel@localhost> <77186.32658.qm@web59104.mail.re1.yahoo.com> <499C7FAD.4080009@gmail.com> <659848.26941.qm@web82607.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <499CA6DA.2010003@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 02:06:43 +0000
Message-ID: <61dbdd7d0902181806g7e98f1cpf5620fd14a7af136@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gareth Nelson <gareth@litesim.com>
To: Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: mmox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mmox] User Accounts / "Object" Transfer.
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, 19 Feb 2009 02:06:31 -0000

> Thus, to make an object appear in a "remote" world, that object needs to be,
> at a minimum, simulated in the "home" world, and information about the
> outcome of that simulation (animations played, movements performed, sounds
> generated, interactions caused, etc) should be transmitted over the
> interoperability channel.

This is a nice way of looking at the problem. So far, everyone has
assumed we send whole objects together with scripts, a very SL-centric
approach. Of course, one big problem is this:
1 - VW A has Cool Object X
2 - User A on VW A sends Cool Object X to user B on VW B
3 - User B on VW B rez's it (and let's assume they're both utterly
different types of world)
4 - VW B's servers talk to VW A and ask VW A to simulate the object

What happens in step 4 if VW A's servers are down?