Re: [ogpx] verbiage : domain, agent domain, region domain, trust domain , service, etc.

+1 on using "services" instead of "domains".

On Monday 29, Morgaine wrote:
> David dissected the "domain" terminology for us thoroughly last year.  He
> very nicely highlighted how the term provides almost no additional value,
> because everything is ultimately a "service", and the whole point of
> VWRAP's services is that they are highly decoupled to provide a large
> number of possible deployments.  "Domain" suggest a stronger coupling than
> actually exists.
>
> The idea of "domain" as a control element is not enforceable, nor useful,
> when services can be external and the set is expandable.  The notion of
> "trust domain" is particularly weak when you don't control external
> services, but merely use them.  Drawing circles around sets of services and
> calling them "domains" is largely wishful thinking when they are
> independent.  You are merely their client rather than their owner:
>
> As an analogy, it's like drawing an "Email domain" circle around an MTA
> service and the external DNS services that it uses.  Drawing the circle
> provides nothing of value.  All the value is held in the services
> themselves, and how they are each configured.
>
> Asset services will exist in their thousands, or millions if the metaverse
> catches on.  What this means in VWRAP deployments which support tourism
> between worlds is that any given region may contain visitors from arbitrary
> many worlds, each visitor bringing references to their own asset services
> with them.
>
> So what does "asset domain" mean in this high-interop context?  Virtually
> nothing, because the alleged "asset domain" encompasses the whole Internet.
> It's a term that belongs with clouds drawn on whiteboards, and doesn't
> contribute anything significant to our protocol specifications, because the
> domains don't actually exist, only the services.
>
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
>
>
> ===============================
>
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:19 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com>wrote:
> > to clarify, i'm not talking about the capability of using a 3rd party
> > asset service (which i think we've all agreed is something we should
> > support) but the use of the term "asset domain" to identify a domain
> > that exports an asset service.
> >
> > --
> > meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
> > @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * OhMeadhbh@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:17 AM, James Hughes <jamesh@bluewallgroup.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> > > On 03/29/2010 01:16 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick wrote:
> > > ...
> > >
> > >> 1. there's a high quality implementation of an asset service out there
> > >> (cable beach) which _could_ be deployed independently of an OpenSim or
> > >> LL instance. does this mean we should have an "asset domain"?
> > >
> > > It would make sense to me to have that capability. The 3rd party asset
> > > services will need to provide functions to interact with both agent and
> > > region domains according to subscription rules and agreements entered
> > > into by operating entities and users. Depending on the rule-set, maybe
> > > the avatar can or cannot see particular inventory items on certain
> > > grids. Or, perhaps, region domains will need to negotiate the ability
> > > to rez or distribute objects based on the rule-sets applied at the 3rd
> > > party service.
> > >
> > > It seems pretty complex to administrate with a 3rd party. And, in my
> > > opinion, defining an asset domain to operate in would be useful. Just
> > > my OS$2.
> > >
> > > regards
> > > James  (BlueWall)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ogpx mailing list (VWRAP working group)
> > ogpx@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx


-- 
Robert G. Jakabosky