IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ogpx] Teleports and protocol resilience

Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@hp.com> Tue, 13 October 2009 16:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mike.dickson@hp.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 0C87528C1DF for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:55:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 1HyxNaOIywTS for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from g6t0186.atlanta.hp.com (g6t0186.atlanta.hp.com [15.193.32.63]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47D6E28C1B6 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from g5t0012.atlanta.hp.com (g5t0012.atlanta.hp.com [15.192.0.49]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by g6t0186.atlanta.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0490E2C0D8; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:55:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.139] (conr-adsl-209-169-71-194.consolidated.net [209.169.71.194]) by g5t0012.atlanta.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AFCE51001A; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:55:34 +0000 (UTC)
From: Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@hp.com>
To: Joshua Bell <josh@lindenlab.com>
In-Reply-To: <f72742de0910130853y2e14a37bkef366f7ddcbf1f63@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e0b04bba0910122213n66886b92x57446ad84def466f@mail.gmail.com> <f72742de0910130853y2e14a37bkef366f7ddcbf1f63@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: HP ISB
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:55:33 -0500
Message-Id: <1255452933.4156.21.camel@mdickson-linux.local>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "ogpx@ietf.org" <ogpx@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ogpx] Teleports and protocol resilience
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, 13 Oct 2009 16:55:35 -0000

On Tue, 2009-10-13 at 15:53 +0000, Joshua Bell wrote:


> One of the reasons that this fails today is that the origin RD
> maintains some amount of agent state (e.g. script state for
> attachments). For a sim-to-sim handoff, the origin RD must
> successfully transmit information either to the AD or the destination
> RD (or both), otherwise the user experience is poor (information is
> lost).  Note that this needs to happen during a simple logoff/login as
> well. It seems to me that agent state in the AD should have ACID-ish
> characteristics, including the agent's current location.

The scripting comment is interesting re: interoperability also.  What
does that imply if I'm going from an OpenSim instance for example which
has additional scripting functions enabled that a SL region might not
support.  How does the destination region determine it can run the
scripts in attachments and that its safe to do so?

Mike

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email