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

David W Levine <> Tue, 30 March 2010 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53F943A685A; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:07:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.068
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.068 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IBFl0FG9+HRd; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:07:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE11C3A683F; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 18:07:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o2U0r576014770; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 20:53:05 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o2U17g4f1859814; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:07:42 -0400
Received: from (loopback []) by (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o2U17fCU019166; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:07:42 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id o2U17f75019163; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:07:41 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Meadhbh Hamrick <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-KeepSent: 474B6274:251179C2-852576F6:00052D03; type=4; name=$KeepSent
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.0.2 HF623 January 16, 2009
Message-ID: <>
From: David W Levine <>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:07:41 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML605/01/M/IBM(Release 8.5.1HF41 | October 22, 2009) at 03/29/2010 21:07:41, Serialize complete at 03/29/2010 21:07:41
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 00063237852576F6_="
Cc:, ogpx <>
Subject: Re: [ogpx] verbiage : domain, agent domain, region domain, trust domain, service, etc.
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 01:07:22 -0000

At the point where you are describing an "Authentication and Login Domain" 
"Asset Domain" "Inventory Domain" "IM Domain" you are effectively binding 
domain to type of service offered. 

The whole reason I an pushing back so hard on "Agent Domain" is because it 
conflates a specific deployment pattern with something special, and uses 
an already overloaded term. I think a perfectly rational and sane use of 
the term would be to follow common IT and Distributed computing practices, 
such as "Trust Domain" and "Administrative Domain" as well is "IP domain" 
This would allow us to write statements like:

"In this grid, the Login, IM, Presence, Inventory, Group, Search and 
Teleport Services live within a single trust domain. The Regions supported 
by this grid fall into separate administrative and trust domains. This 
grid access a variety of asset and micro-payment services all of which are 
outside both our trust and administrative domain." 

One of the pain points introduced by binding ANY grouping of services into 
the term "domain" at the architectural level is that is implies that this 
specific deployment pattern is privileged within the specifications. The 
closest that I come to thinking that really exists in VWRAP is the cluster 
of services required to support a region. Even here, tho, the pattern, as 
a web pattern, is mostly that of a facade, and the underlying deployment 
of services which actually comprise any specific region may well be 
separated across trust and administrative domains. A rather obvious 
example being the voice services in the second life grid which are 
delegated to Vivox, crossing several "domain" boundaries. 

If we believe there are privileged groupings of services which must be 
clustered and cannot be facaded or separately deployed from other services 
lets enumerate them and understand why they are clustered. 

- David
~ Zha