IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ogpx] Cable Beach + VWRAP update

Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com> Tue, 19 January 2010 08:34 UTC

Return-Path: <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.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 ADDEE3A68C9 for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:34:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 uqh9vnhtZ16R for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:34:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ew0-f214.google.com (mail-ew0-f214.google.com [209.85.219.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F5D73A67B2 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:34:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ewy6 with SMTP id 6so4397580ewy.29 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:33:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=1oAZVz/FKtoxANkFO6b29dSnnMyNiTxysFN/Yart0NY=; b=ZeDJwCcEcJBQxGgd35ht5wVXrdBLevzjyTifc6RhtOYV/Fo8SjOV4pnVNLSATlGs08 F1UBFbOappjBSpRBDm2pWrYSB+mK1d8GMdNEqpH3LJWzkqWne326Xoii6V9cBNmP+0Pu VsMdu69ZY2pbFC9Fgh0RWT90hsJqHqI1kGl+0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=mJK0rvPvnGRFO5aHqE+RGtcMznhLrooEsjgjNmNxPaG+cASQ0i93tcrmekTqbFRLxk uu4HyF2gHGMQGcawsL5FNGS3L9LUcf7bQQDS2FsamUkGAtja8F+1L5Zdio0dcRHV6zze aA5yoDAyH0rQA/PlqkWLb78NiyC1oDJj1jCss=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.213.50.69 with SMTP id y5mr7664629ebf.48.1263890035806; Tue, 19 Jan 2010 00:33:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933DC4A751F2@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933DC4A74D40@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com> <e0b04bba1001152009k5885cb07r9108626237d9f5ea@mail.gmail.com> <62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933DC4A751F2@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:33:55 +0000
Message-ID: <e0b04bba1001190033u587ff468p40d6a89990f7fc14@mail.gmail.com>
From: Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
To: "ogpx@ietf.org" <ogpx@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001485eb00609e91d8047d80544c"
Subject: Re: [ogpx] Cable Beach + VWRAP update
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: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 08:34:05 -0000

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Hurliman, John
<john.hurliman@intel.com>wrote (my highlighting):

>

I think we got wires crossed between two different conversations. Cable
Beach as it applies to VWRAP only introduces one new concept, the delegated
agent seed capability (the ability for one AD to grant partial service
access to another AD). *There is no explicit or implied deployment model,
inventory policy, or decision about what domain the inventory service(s)
should live in. I added a footnote to clarify this since the example images
show an inventory service in the AD.*


John:  That's very good news, thanks for the clarification!

I replied in more depth on the subject in answer to David a few minutes
ago.  I can summarize it briefly for you here:  "If inventory is just
references free of semantics about content type or origin, then most of the
potential problems vanish."

In other words, I'm much reassured, and also very pleased with your
underlining that VWRAP deployment options would not be curtailed in this
model.


Morgaine.





=============================

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Hurliman, John <john.hurliman@intel.com>wrote:

>  I think we got wires crossed between two different conversations. Cable
> Beach as it applies to VWRAP only introduces one new concept, the delegated
> agent seed capability (the ability for one AD to grant partial service
> access to another AD). There is no explicit or implied deployment model,
> inventory policy, or decision about what domain the inventory service(s)
> should live in. I added a footnote to clarify this since the example images
> show an inventory service in the AD.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
> *From:* ogpx-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ogpx-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Morgaine
> *Sent:* Friday, January 15, 2010 8:09 PM
> *To:* ogpx@ietf.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: [ogpx] Cable Beach + VWRAP update
>
>
>
> I spoke at length with John about his blog post.
>
> Unfortunately, it seems that his model has some serious restrictions as a
> result of hardwired service coupling, with only a single deployment model
> being allowed.  This is a deployment in which the AD dictates region asset
> policies to RDs or regions through central inventory policy…
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> ogpx@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email