[mmox] OGP scalability concerns

"Hurliman, John" <john.hurliman@intel.com> Wed, 01 April 2009 20:56 UTC

Return-Path: <john.hurliman@intel.com>
X-Original-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmox@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6927E3A6BAB for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.126
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.126 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.158, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NGtgGqNRLHh7 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A868A3A6DA6 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Apr 2009 13:48:16 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.39,308,1235980800"; d="scan'208";a="444115963"
Received: from rrsmsx603.amr.corp.intel.com ([]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Apr 2009 13:52:19 -0700
Received: from rrsmsx601.amr.corp.intel.com ( by rrsmsx603.amr.corp.intel.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.340.0; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:56:46 -0600
Received: from rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com ([]) by rrsmsx601.amr.corp.intel.com ([]) with mapi; Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:56:46 -0600
From: "Hurliman, John" <john.hurliman@intel.com>
To: "mmox@ietf.org" <mmox@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:56:41 -0600
Thread-Topic: OGP scalability concerns
Thread-Index: AcmzDFuLPSSoNG5USN2irBnDmPgnbQ==
Message-ID: <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933D7B692E1B@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-cr-puzzleid: {6368C765-7EB1-4683-B9A2-20A01E3859F9}
x-cr-hashedpuzzle: ZsI= AdFq Ak6Q BpGA DzqU D/kZ ExyI E5/0 FNWU Ff2E F48d GOJg GXhM IX0l IaEh Jn2A; 1; bQBtAG8AeABAAGkAZQB0AGYALgBvAHIAZwA=; Sosha1_v1; 7; {6368C765-7EB1-4683-B9A2-20A01E3859F9}; agBvAGgAbgAuAGgAdQByAGwAaQBtAGEAbgBAAGkAbgB0AGUAbAAuAGMAbwBtAA==; Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:56:41 GMT; TwBHAFAAIABzAGMAYQBsAGEAYgBpAGwAaQB0AHkAIABjAG8AbgBjAGUAcgBuAHMA
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [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: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:56:04 -0000

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.