[ogpx] A Review of Multi-Domain Use Cases [Was: Re: OpenID and OGP : beginning the discussion ...]

[Infinity Linden <[e-mail]>]

aha! yes! totally!

OGP is being designed in such a way that "agent concerns" are
separated from "simulation and object presence concerns." One of the
features of OGP is it allows (but does not require) that the
simulation host responsible for maintaining the physical state of
objects (location, orientation, shape, motion, etc.) _can_ be
administered by a different authority from that of the host
responsible for maintaining user information.

or, more succinctly, "the agent domain" may be run by a distinct
organization from the "region domain."

one of the reasons this was introduced was to allow one virtual world
to consist of regions that are administered by different people or
companies, but maintaining central services (like presence, inventory,
group IM, etc.) that lead to a consistent user experience.

in other words, our objective is to allow a user to login to an agent
domain, then establish their avatar's presence in a particular region
and allow that avatar to easily walk across a region boundary to a
region owned and operated by a different trusted operator, and have
that avatar's attachments, appearance and possessions follow them.
(though for expectation setting purposes i should mention that having
adjacent regions from distinct region domains is something that's "way
out there" in terms of schedule, as there's a lot more protocol
between adjacent regions than non-adjacent regions and it's yet to be
standardized in any meaningful manner.)

so... yes... moving from one region domain to another is fully
supported by the protocol.

having an agent defined in multiple agent domains is a little trickier.

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Carlo Wood<[e-mail]> wrote:
> I'm glad it doesn't imply that then :p
>
> Nevertheless, it worries me a bit. At some point we want to be able to
> teleport between grids right? Surely the people will want to have the
> same name (and shape) after they teleported in most cases.
>
> If the same first_name+last_name is only unique per grid, then
> people will (have to) start fights about names: one has to register
> the same first_name+last_name on every grid you want to use.
>
> The make a long story short: they same wars and trouble will immerse
> as are happening on IRC now: too many people in a too small namespace.
>
> At some point there will come the strong demand for a "nick serv",
> some central point where people can reserve their name for every
> large grid on the planet and claim for themselves (for example, to
> stop forms of impersonations). That would be 'hack'.
>
> I think we have to seriously think about this. Perhaps there is a
> better solution than 'first name / last name' to login ;).
>
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 03:54:08PM -0700, Infinity Linden wrote:
>> why would this imply global uniqueness? it describes a message sent
>> from a client to a particular protocol endpoint.
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Carlo Wood<[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >>    & identifier = {
>> >>      type: 'account',
>> >>      account_name: string,
>> >>      first_name: string,
>> >>      last_name: string,
>> >>    }
>> >>
>> >>    & identifier = {
>> >>        type: 'agent',
>> >>        first_name: string,
>> >>        last_name: string,
>> >>    }
>> >
>> > This seems to implicate that first_name + last_name
>> > have to be unique not only per grid, but globally
>> > for every virtual world.
>> >
>> > Is that true? Or would it be possible to use a different
>> > name on different grids? Would it be possible that different
>> > unrelated people use the same name on different grids?
>
> --
> Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>
>