Re: [mmox] OGP scalability concerns

Yes, I would concur. There are OpenSim adopters that do wish and are using
OpenSim regions to connect to SecondLife using OGP and I applaud that use
case and wish to see it continue.

I have to admit that my personal bias came out a little bit. That personal
bias is that my personal heart is also attached to the OSGrid project, which
is a growing grid of regions that one day (I hope), there will exist some
proper and negotiated way to teleport from OSGrid to a SecondLife grid.
Whether or not that will happen is in the future and something yet to be
negotiated, but I wear two hats.

One of those hats is that of an OpenSim Core developer and the second hat is
that of one of the Directors of OSGrid. I try *really* hard to be fair to
all, so please pardon me if my OSGrid bias came out a little bit on the
"symmetry" question of interop.

Charles Krinke
OpenSim Core Developer
OSGrid Director

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick (Infinity) <
infinity@lindenlab.com> wrote:

> i would argue that there _are_ in fact OpenSim operators who would want to
> connect to linden servers and consume linden services.
>
> we use URIs as caps and mandate consumers of these caps treat them as
> opaque web addresses explicitly because we want to support the use case
> where the host that responds to a seed cap request can provide a URI in a
> different administrative domain for other services.. um.. like.. i dunno..
> like where your identity and presence is managed on a server distinct from
> the one that provides SIP/RTP voice services.
>
> i applaud your effort to shoehorn technologies into a codebase. we'll be
> over here trying to build a coherent set of services whose use semantics are
> conformable.
>
> -cheers
> -meadhbh
>
> On Apr 2, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Hurliman, John wrote:
>
>  we also use the term "domain" in it's more traditional sense to imply
>>> a bounds of authority. which is to say, we assume that all hosts and
>>> services inside a domain are administered by the same entity. that
>>> being said, there's no reason you can't have sub-domains, and there's
>>> no reason that two services associated with "the" agent domain can't
>>> be split across two administrative domains (like maybe yahoo or AOL
>>> get in the business of moving virtual world IM messages but don't want
>>> to deploy a world themselves.) it would require some coordination of
>>> identity management issues, but i'm sure they're tractable.
>>>
>>
>> I understand this. If you are Linden Lab and you are already in the
>> business of running lots of independent services (content hosting, identity
>> storage and authorization, instant messaging, inventory servers, simulators,
>> etc) then it makes sense to lump every service you want to provide under one
>> trust domain. Simulation can be a different domain so third party simulators
>> like OpenSim can run under a separate trust domain and optionally connect to
>> the aggregate Linden Lab service cloud. Tada! You have OGP. It's a great
>> business model. Unless you are any company *except* Linden Lab and you want
>> to provide a service such as content hosting without becoming a full virtual
>> world service provider.
>>
>> Using the current evolution of the web as historical evidence and assuming
>> that specialized service providers will be the norm, lumping together
>> instant messaging and content hosting under the same umbrella doesn't make
>> any sense. This is why I'm in favor of starting from the ground up and
>> defining each use case and service endpoint, rather than trying to figure
>> out clever ways of shoehorning the "right" approach into Linden Lab's OGP.
>>
>> John
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmox mailing list
>> mmox@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmox mailing list
> mmox@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmox
>

-- 
Charles Krinke
OpenSim Core Developer
OSGrid Director