Re: [mmox] The Story So Far...

Charles Krinke <cfk@pacbell.net> Wed, 18 February 2009 00:23 UTC

Return-Path: <cfk@pacbell.net>
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 250423A6B29 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:23:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.441
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.441 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.157, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 RSC0d49++rBo for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:23:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from web82603.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web82603.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.201.120]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A78813A6B10 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:23:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 42175 invoked by uid 60001); 18 Feb 2009 00:23:49 -0000
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=pacbell.net; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=AThaCtbi2SQw/ntdz1PAtl2B9h1XQJ5FIYxr5qmHp1OXtAKfcFdeYtnR49xxP+PU3Ig7nCsRD6nI6vRmtc1Hq2z3+nILKl0M8EfjwS+dAndWuzn9gdUu1JytTWziBZja6wDh2c9kaCSvtkX9eP5ythbp1wRm5ks3HN/UoO9Pj/A=;
X-YMail-OSG: gkot0.YVM1ml.fbU_ytsyoePoYWtbLj4h6O2NWINKpcZMGsRQxKHdVrlB4BAt8M.QcCytYLiLI_9TVqPhn8TKgm3TDoyWGxriJsrD2LigfqISZ8_HWnl0NMd6f8wByvZncjd1sERqUNhPBhyjKP1AeqTCVTM4sBf_35vcDurAse1S4fnREU5Wv5XY4MjtAIvQEm_iYuGHu4B3w--
Received: from [75.214.176.151] by web82603.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:23:49 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/1155.45 YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1
References: <1E40CE05-15D1-4970-9B0F-CD4AD11A074A@lindenlab.com> <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933D501FDC38@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com> <B8A94709-07E4-4FF8-B321-A4123E9DC633@lindenlab.com> <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933D501FDCC8@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:23:49 -0800
From: Charles Krinke <cfk@pacbell.net>
To: "Hurliman, John" <john.hurliman@intel.com>, "mmox@ietf.org" <mmox@ietf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-680604697-1234916629=:42147"
Message-ID: <306449.42147.qm@web82603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [mmox] The Story So Far...
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: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:23:39 -0000

As I think about virtual worlds and interoperability, the metaphor of independent states or nations come to mind. So, I guess in thinking about interop between virtual worlds, we can either go down the secondlife/opensim type of path and try to fit all virtual worlds into that paradigm with agentdomains or UGAIM notions or we could step back a bit and consider interop between secondlife/opensim/Wow/croquet/wonderland and others.

Is is appropriate to start at a higher level and take a step back and consider the broader implications of virtual worlds beyond just our current paradigm such as WoW/croquet/wonderland and identify the minimum definition of network "plumbing" with that in mind?

Charles




________________________________
From: "Hurliman, John" <john.hurliman@intel.com>
To: "mmox@ietf.org" <mmox@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:16:30 PM
Subject: Re: [mmox] The Story So Far...

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity) [mailto:infinity@lindenlab.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 3:42 PM
>To: Hurliman, John
>Cc: mmox@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [mmox] The Story So Far...
>
>
>On Feb 17, 2009, at 3:09 PM, Hurliman, John wrote:
>
>>> While there is plenty to do and discuss in order to develop OGP
>>> into a
>>> fully workable protocol, we think it represents an initial shared
>>> vision
>>> of an interoperable protocol and hope it can evolve and grow in the
>>> context of this group.
>>>
>>> - Mark Lentczner
>>>
>>> [1] http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Open_Grid_Protocol
>>
>> It's great to see the amount of work that is being brought to the
>> table by Linden Lab and the Linden Lab Architecture Working Group
>> (AWG) participants, and I hope as much of it as possible can be used
>> to build an MMOX standard. I've been working on an LLIDL
>> implementation among other things based on what Linden Lab has
>> submitted as draft material.
>
>awesome!
>
>> It's my understanding that Open Grid Protocol (OGP) is a Linden Lab
>> project; part of the Linden Lab AWG which had no active contributors
>> that were also active developers of libSecondLife/libOpenMetaverse
>> or OpenSim during the time the OGP protocols were designed. The
>> "agent domain" concept in OGP terminology brings in a host of
>> assumptions that are diametrically opposed to the goals of
>> libOpenMetaverse and OpenSim (supporting millions of independent
>> administrative domains and service providers).
>
>huh? there were a number of non-lindens who participated in the
>development of OGP. the AWG does not, nor did it ever disallow
>participation by libSL or libOMV contributors / committers. last
>summer we demonstrated interoperability between Linden Lab's servers
>and an OpenSim instance. we hope that members of the libSL and libOMV
>teams will participate in MMOX.
>

I said "AWG had no active contributors that were also active developers of libSecondLife/libOpenMetaverse or OpenSim during the time the OGP protocols were designed". The participation by individuals that were not Linden Lab employees does not mean that OGP is a joint effort between Linden Lab and the libOpenMetaverse or OpenSim projects, or that the OGP as it is drafted has support from the libomv/OpenSim communities.

>the concept of an agent domain was defined explicitly to support many
>different independent administrative domains. that is... though the
>interoperability test last summer used the Linden agent domain, the
>specification does not mandate a single agent domain. in fact, i
>believe Christian Scholz (a non-linden) implemented his own Agent
>Domain based on code from the PyOGP project. There is also frequent
>mention in AWG meetings of an upcoming C# implementation of an Agent
>Domain, again by a non Linden-Lab employee.

The agent domain concept takes several independent services (identity, presence, inventory) and lumps them together into a single trust domain. This inhibits the development of a widely distributed ecosystem like we find on the web today, and is really only convenient for large virtual world service providers that already have a vertical stack of services. It also drags in the assumption that there must be a backend communication layer between services such as inventory and simulation regions.

John
_______________________________________________
mmox mailing list
mmox@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox