Re: [ogpx] VWRAP Draft Charter - 2009 09 01

Joshua Bell <josh@lindenlab.com> Thu, 01 October 2009 22:26 UTC

Return-Path: <josh@lindenlab.com>
X-Original-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAEFA3A67A4 for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 15:26:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.634
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.634 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.342, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 xz9bH0Dwx4mi for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 15:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pz0-f197.google.com (mail-pz0-f197.google.com [209.85.222.197]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C10663A679F for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 15:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pzk35 with SMTP id 35so868432pzk.29 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.142.11 with SMTP id p11mr715149rvd.7.1254436079457; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <716017.47390.qm@web82603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <3a880e2c0909011549n504111ebi2729273631cdee74@mail.gmail.com> <20090904195822.GA15341@alinoe.com> <e0b04bba0909132243r10730a3fq275f8143087807c6@mail.gmail.com> <20090914084420.GA25580@alinoe.com> <9b8a8de40909291316i19c79a96h111d88e73a64cc79@mail.gmail.com> <e0b04bba0909291751g157d2043g1c15e8d8ac417ccf@mail.gmail.com> <f72742de0909300910t23131532i1719d2c86423fa41@mail.gmail.com> <e0b04bba0910011434i13f890bfodd22cd15eef17697@mail.gmail.com> <f72742de0910011457o5e757135rd9db7fc7f4a1389@mail.gmail.com> <716017.47390.qm@web82603.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:27:59 -0700
Message-ID: <f72742de0910011527y18a84eeej8387d0011356873@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joshua Bell <josh@lindenlab.com>
To: ogpx@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd14836e8d7180474e7282d"
Subject: Re: [ogpx] VWRAP Draft Charter - 2009 09 01
X-BeenThere: ogpx@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual Worlds and the Open Grid Protocol <ogpx.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ogpx>
List-Post: <mailto:ogpx@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 22:26:36 -0000

Cool, thanks for the clarification. Yeah... I think if you take GridServer
out of that mix you'd get something conceptually equivalent to the AD.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Charles Krinke <cfk@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Well, no, thats not quite how OpenSim works.
>
> A standalone OpenSim region with no grid services is probably loosely
> equivalent to no AD and I think that was the mode in which the tests were
> performed with the IBM OpenSim region and OGP a year or so ago.
>
> An OpenSim region running in grid mode is connected to a number of servers
> that connect the grid together. These are a UserServer, GridServer,
> Asset/InventoryServer and MessagingServer. So these are *more or less*
> equivalent to AD notions.
>
> Charles
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Joshua Bell <josh@lindenlab.com>
> *To:* ogpx@ietf.org
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 1, 2009 2:57:23 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [ogpx] VWRAP Draft Charter - 2009 09 01
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> Your next step is to realize that, for two structurally identical worlds,
>> if the seat of policy of one lies in its AD, then the seat of policy of the
>> other also lies in its AD.  Therefore your statement needs to be modified to
>> the following:
>>
>> IMHO, it should be apparent that both the AD of the source world and the
>> RD and AD of the destination world all need to make policy decisions.
>>
>>
> I don't agree with this at all.
>
> A VW service provider could operate a region domain with no agent domain. I
> believe this is VERY LOOSELY equivalent to running an OpenSim instance in
> Grid mode today (but I can't state that definitively) the person running the
> sim is basically running just the region, and relying on someone else's
> agent domain (agent-centric services).
>
> Similarly, BigGiantCo could operate an agent domain for their employs (as a
> bolt-on to their enterprise LDAP server, say) with no region domain.
>
> A BigGiantCo employee can visit the RD-only VW - the AD talks to the RD to
> place the agent in a region. There aren't necessarily any other RDs or ADs
> involved at all. This is where protocol and policy come into play - the AD
> needs to communicate with and trust the RD and vice versa (even if that's
> nil-trust).
>
>