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

Hmmm. Well, it seems reasonable to me that each grid has one and only one first/last avatar of any particular first and last.

Admiteddly, I am more focused on the OpenSim and the OSGrid side of this interop discussion, but, since the precedent has already been set for <first>.<last>@GridName.Com it seems a reasonable and non-ambiguous method.

All avatars on OpenSim grids do have a UUID, so that could certainly be exposed. Then we could have conversations between "0123-4567-89ab-123456899abc-defa" and others instead of <first>.<last>@gridname.comgridname.com, I suppose.

Charles Krinke

________________________________
From: Infinity Linden <infinity@lindenlab.com>
To: Charles Krinke <cfk@pacbell.net>
Cc: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>om>; Meadhbh Siobhan <meadhbh.siobhan@gmail.com>om>; ogpx@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 12:19:18 PM
Subject: Re: [ogpx] A Review of Multi-Domain Use Cases [Was: Re: OpenID and  OGP : beginning the discussion ...]

hmm... i think over in the OGP world we have a history of being
enamored with capabilities and RESTful resources, ergo my suggestion
that an agent's unique ID be an URL. If the public URL a service may
go to to get public information about an agent is the unique ID for an
avatar, then you don't need a name to service resolution step, which
has some advantages. i don't want to sound partisan, but the
formulation below (that looks like an email address) seems to have the
potential for ambiguity.

On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Charles Krinke<cfk@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In some interop scenarios, and I am using HyperGrid as an example as it
> addresses the same problem, the current solution is to use:
>
> <First>.<Last>@GridName.Com
>
> Which is not an email, but is a unique identifier for an avatar on a
> particular grid.
>
> As OGP moves forward, it seems reasonable to me that the Grids (or perhaps
> AgentDomains to use the vernacular here) are the authority for a particular
> avatar that comes from that grid.
>
> Charles Krinke
>
> ________________________________
> From: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
> To: Meadhbh Siobhan <meadhbh.siobhan@gmail.com>
> Cc: Infinity Linden <infinity@lindenlab.com>om>; ogpx@ietf.org
> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 9:18:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [ogpx] A Review of Multi-Domain Use Cases [Was: Re: OpenID and
> OGP : beginning the discussion ...]
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 06:11:21PM +0200, Carlo Wood wrote:
>> If this is the case, then I'm happy and there should be no problems
>> in the future regarding this. If no separate ID is provided then
>> several problems occur:
>> * Impersonation (people deliberately using the same shape and skin etc)
>> * IM's will be logged to the same file, because the viewer can't
>>  know who is who.
>>
>> Also, the ID has to be same every time - because the viewer will
>> need to recognize that this John Smith is not AGAIN a new one,
>> but the same, every time.
>
> To clarify; what started this thread was this:
>
>    & identifier = {
>        type: 'agent',
>        first_name: string,
>        last_name: string,
>    }
>
> Here I only see 'first_name' and 'last_name'.
> As we've established now (I hope) this is not enough at
> any level of the protocol, not between servers, but also
> not between server and client.
>
> Hence, it worried me. If you say "identifier" I expect
> something globally unique.
>
> I think this should be:
>
>    & identifier = {
>        type: 'agent',
>     uuid: string,
>        first_name: string,
>        last_name: string,
>    }
>
> Where the uuid is not only unique, but constant for any given
> account (it doesn't change if one logs out and logs in again).
> It could be an email address, but for privacy reasons I think
> that should not be used; some hash seems much more logical.
>
> --
> Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> ogpx@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>