Re: [ogpx] Beyond the monolithic client protocol endpoint (was Re: Synchronization of gestures)

Han Sontse <han.sontse.sl@gmail.com> Mon, 07 December 2009 05:20 UTC

Return-Path: <han.sontse.sl@gmail.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 1A0FA3A68B4 for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2009 21:20:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.049
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.310, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_LWSHORTT=1.24]
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 ehSGHqW3gCkf for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2009 21:20:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pw0-f50.google.com (mail-pw0-f50.google.com [209.85.160.50]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E0DF3A67A2 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Dec 2009 21:20:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pwi20 with SMTP id 20so971026pwi.29 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:19:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:cc:message-id:from:to :in-reply-to:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:references :x-mailer; bh=DOB918bKTe73N4kK+DlNjE33MnaCM7m9LUH1p1wJY14=; b=tLfxTf30xrOvgkPaVKgNhkdt2Dm01ZfZrQ03+zF0PFshnMdbdcrq+kB9QxR08fN8M+ URqUhvkb+onapTIiXuTqe8xcleLggv8f+dOPI+dtIwhkKR23fw8DmE4wpavWFeHGj8Vp XiHBckXfLx0MsV054FvJQsaDYwMp1gmgB8Plc=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=cc:message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type:mime-version:subject :date:references:x-mailer; b=p0hmL6/ScRrMXOx7OjxzWHd1estsWSbhEvdHV3oEmU/djv0H3hqnnVFLofpEFwFj81 IQI6mJS8zP/eVRbnAG9p53bbZwL9JeA47dbAYshr4EN6CCLE34hfBFScRs4/TOtNRE7N gI/0a1NYGQ4BGoeNTiNAZy9lFB7HjbR0/I5s0=
Received: by 10.115.103.7 with SMTP id f7mr10822370wam.1.1260163198642; Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:19:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?192.168.1.57? ([98.125.217.118]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 20sm2017990pxi.15.2009.12.06.21.19.57 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 06 Dec 2009 21:19:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <EFDD1412-8E95-4C20-9F73-2605A9E7831F@gmail.com>
From: Han Sontse <han.sontse.sl@gmail.com>
To: David W Levine <dwl@us.ibm.com>, Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
In-Reply-To: <OF4E68E078.42799DBF-ON85257685.000A0777-85257685.0014C090@us.ibm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2-535638649
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936)
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 21:19:56 -0800
References: <e0b04bba0912051014y1aeea211i2ce3267179c70f1e@mail.gmail.com> <4B1B785A.9000602@cox.net> <e0b04bba0912060911i122d62e9o37a7229a2d742ac@mail.gmail.com> <OF4E68E078.42799DBF-ON85257685.000A0777-85257685.0014C090@us.ibm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
Cc: ogpx@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ogpx] Beyond the monolithic client protocol endpoint (was Re: Synchronization of gestures)
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: Mon, 07 Dec 2009 05:20:13 -0000

On Dec 6, 2009, at 7:46 PM, David W Levine wrote:

>
> The current specs certainly are intended to be totally neutral on  
> this. The only place I can see where one would have to pay attention  
> would be in managing and establishing TLS pipes (HTTPS) and this is  
> routinely done within web environments. As you observe, the semantic  
> of capabilities is designed to support this. It would actually take  
> some effort to break that semantic.
>
> That said, there are structures which work better, and worse, when  
> they are widely distributed.Asset, Messaging, and Such distribute  
> without much pain. The core state sharing application (What a region  
> does for a living) is harder to spread out, and likewise, there are  
> interesting synchronization challenges as you break apart client  
> components. The less shared tasks (such as manipulating your  
> inventory) are less sensitive. The data flows which manage the  
> shared visual experience more so.
>
> From the protocol perspective, I suggest the question is "Are there  
> specific synchronization management issues we need to surface." I'm  
> not expecting a lot, but if we know of some, we should get them on  
> the table.I will also gently remind people of the notewell, when it  
> comes to
> any IPR encumbered issues in this space.
>
> - David / Zha
>

Loosely speaking we need to be able to deal with a cloud-to-cloud  
relationship.   This fuzzy notion seems to extend to client-clouds and  
server-clouds, as well as P2P clouds.   To the extent that a given  
simulation space might contain other simulations, one could even  
consider each client as a server and each server as a client.

maybe a way to begin to break down the complexity in these  
relationships it to look at the different classes of service that may  
be declared:

Protocol constraints
One-shot  (UDP)
simple Ack (UDP-UDP)
Transactional short term (TCP)
Complex (Multi-port/multi-host???)

QoS
Isochronous -- definite real time interval; predefined sequence order
Synchronous --  predefined sequence ordering, indefinite time interval
Asynchronous -- indefinite sequencing, indefinite timing

Payload class declaration
	content streams
	parametric events
	bulk transfers
	OoB Signalling

Payload structure declaration
	intrinsics (uint32, bool, etc)
		direct
		indirect
	structured
	complex

Topology (Client and server are sub-classed peers)
	Ringed/chained P2P (a peer only knows 1 or 2 neighbors in the context)
	Open P2P( a peer knows all other peers in the context)
	Hierarchical P2P (peer knows a small set of super-peers and an  
arbitrary number of local peers)
	???

and so on....
~HS~