Re: [mmox] where is identity @ in all this?

Lawson English <lenglish5@cox.net> Sat, 21 February 2009 00:38 UTC

Return-Path: <lenglish5@cox.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 C06BF3A6AF9 for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:38:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.69
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.69 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.255, BAYES_40=-0.185, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
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 iVFa2tBqS01k for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:38:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fed1rmmtao106.cox.net (fed1rmmtao106.cox.net [68.230.241.40]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5E113A68F9 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:38:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fed1rmimpo03.cox.net ([70.169.32.75]) by fed1rmmtao106.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20090221003824.UMYO12540.fed1rmmtao106.cox.net@fed1rmimpo03.cox.net>; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:38:24 -0500
Received: from Macintosh.local ([72.200.120.202]) by fed1rmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id JQeR1b0054N6T0Q04QeRTT; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:38:25 -0500
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=dJZNl1pbwy4A:10 a=aNmmtEIUWqEA:10 a=Wajolswj7cQA:10 a=LpB1zSSiHsnA21QlNhcA:9 a=JTzL449nCOXZPtZME3ox6coKKUwA:4 a=6UxOEEjT9BUA:10 a=059jtadoKCeW9wGd:21 a=QKkdkoxl57F1hcEr:21
X-CM-Score: 0.00
Message-ID: <499F4D01.1010109@cox.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:38:25 -0700
From: Lawson English <lenglish5@cox.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Gareth Nelson <gareth@litesim.com>
References: <1E40CE05-15D1-4970-9B0F-CD4AD11A074A@lindenlab.com> <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933D501FDC38@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com> <499C5415.7060400@cox.net> <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933D501FE124@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com> <2bd5b7f10902181356l64dd8366n2b5e57ef4242ae0f@mail.gmail.com> <676211.48955.qm@web82608.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <499CA916.1090008@gmail.com> <488F29D4-F071-4725-B1B6-FFC17C220F8D@duke.edu> <61dbdd7d0902201612i415f8f0i5be70c164d5412e7@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <61dbdd7d0902201612i415f8f0i5be70c164d5412e7@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: mmox@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mmox] where is identity @ in all this?
X-BeenThere: mmox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: lenglish5@cox.net
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: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 00:38:14 -0000

Gareth Nelson wrote:
>> Tightly coupling the MSP and identity provider functions is why I have to
>> keep telling people that Mark McCahill is named Mysterio Sinister in Second
>> Life - I can't easily be mccahill@duke.edu because Second Life doesn't use
>> external federated identity providers. Then when I go to one of the OpenSim
>> worlds, I need to create another account, and hope that nobody has signed up
>> for Mysterio Sinister before I got there.
>>     
>
> Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't this the problem the OGP agent
> domain was designed to resolve?
> I propose an agent domain which itself allows multiple methods of authentication
>   

Authentication itself was left pretty much under-defined to this point 
in that OGP, with the assumption that different agent domains might have 
different authentication schemes. Another thing to keep in mind is that, 
regarding IP issues, different girds/worlds might have different 
standards for what is an acceptable authentication scheme.


L