IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mmox] OGP scalability concerns

"Hurliman, John" <john.hurliman@intel.com> Fri, 03 April 2009 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <john.hurliman@intel.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 382B128C1FC for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.414
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.414 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.185, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 kiEZylQxPDzF for <mmox@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51F5C28C187 for <mmox@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2009 10:55:48 -0700
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.39,320,1235980800"; d="scan'208";a="503400682"
Received: from rrsmsx604.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.31.0.170]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2009 11:03:58 -0700
Received: from rrsmsx601.amr.corp.intel.com (10.31.0.151) by rrsmsx604.amr.corp.intel.com (10.31.0.170) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.340.0; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 12:04:28 -0600
Received: from rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.31.0.39]) by rrsmsx601.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.31.0.151]) with mapi; Fri, 3 Apr 2009 12:04:27 -0600
From: "Hurliman, John" <john.hurliman@intel.com>
To: Jon Watte <jwatte@gmail.com>, Christian Scholz <cs@comlounge.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:04:23 -0600
Thread-Topic: [mmox] OGP scalability concerns
Thread-Index: Acm0gRjyFQ8+Hh68R9WKARy9QBctbQABXjug
Message-ID: <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933D7B94D218@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933D7B692E1B@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com> <CD02023C-3E7B-4E76-8429-11035C827E53@lindenlab.com> <f0b9e3410904011701i2ccb03d4r1b48d33cfe3988ea@mail.gmail.com> <49D40A06.7030708@gmail.com> <8D793BD8-6AA2-49C7-96EF-435A5B449AA6@lindenlab.com> <49D4295C.2020502@gmail.com> <52A129B8-3FC6-486A-99A5-C00BED8BDE08@lindenlab.com> <49D4E5AF.2030301@gmail.com> <49D51A7D.8000104@comlounge.net> <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933D7B6934A3@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com> <49D52DCD.2000806@comlounge.net> <49D531DA.4080006@gmail.com> <49D533EA.4010301@comlounge.net> <49D54648.4020007@gmail.com> <49D6284D.8050000@comlounge.net> <49D64660.4060900@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <49D64660.4060900@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "mmox@ietf.org" <mmox@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [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: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 18:03:27 -0000

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jon Watte [mailto:jwatte@gmail.com]
>Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 10:25 AM
>To: Christian Scholz
>Cc: Hurliman, John; mmox@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [mmox] OGP scalability concerns
>
>Christian Scholz wrote:
>> So lets look at the spec as it is right now:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hammer-oauth-02.txt
>>
>> And maybe we should use the same terminology because I might simply be
>> confused ;-)
>>
>
>That is a re-wording and clarification of the version I had previously
>read.
>
>I guess the question then is whether service provider implementations
>require the callback URL in their implementation, or whether they'll be
>OK with a NULL callback URL. I know of at least one service provider
>that has a form submission to obtain an application key where the
>callback URL cannot be left empty, but maybe it can be redirected to
>some URI that does nothing.
>
>Regarding service discovery: Does anyone want to start talking about
>XRDS?
>http://xrds-simple.net/core/1.0/
>
>Sincerely,
>
>jw

Yes

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email