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

Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com> Mon, 29 March 2010 18:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ohmeadhbh@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 86E313A68DA for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:19:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.714
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.714 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.324, BAYES_20=-0.74, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
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 Qk1NBrWSIdLR for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:19:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f197.google.com (mail-qy0-f197.google.com [209.85.221.197]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF4423A6B2C for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk35 with SMTP id 35so3015612qyk.18 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:19:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:received:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=tFQU395ewDgzpmCNiM2yAGpAaUP6VNPv1hWeEMvroqg=; b=DscaUGs6A0KUwokB4KkBdcZtRxjxTT1UzstIzIrRN69xUUYw3ohCE37H3Dl0F6N6JI 1sSgVXt9/E/PzOG27b5rndtyf3u9I7WpwMMSdma1hPDu2Dgb2ViBsi5Ho6u0W9jTDQZ0 Dix+M8fVT2nBiSTjUoL6Sg3zcmPHwXt+74Yy0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Az67zAWI2c4BOgznhtVqF4L5uWuyLrFRxgTc6EqIp/R3HXLigNDs2/GoDSv0zKFWA+ GwoMcXGBiq7Z9H2iuGV7tQK3lcU6QAjuW+DCDMzwtn2lYENpnb2nLwBYLwfDGmpyNoc3 3YMNx95HGIjnAUFLXpUjAO01WPLmOZ+m43lAc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.20.209 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:19:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4BB0EEAB.9010602@bluewallgroup.com>
References: <b325928b1003291016i5c07e6d9na0feda9faf930aeb@mail.gmail.com> <4BB0EEAB.9010602@bluewallgroup.com>
From: Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:19:19 -0700
Received: by 10.229.213.140 with SMTP id gw12mr2649511qcb.96.1269886779170; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:19:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <b325928b1003291119m4b2e6233w3b2d237adc04abac@mail.gmail.com>
To: James Hughes <jamesh@bluewallgroup.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: ogpx <ogpx@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [ogpx] verbiage : domain, agent domain, region domain, trust domain, service, etc.
X-BeenThere: ogpx@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <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, 29 Mar 2010 18:19:46 -0000

to clarify, i'm not talking about the capability of using a 3rd party
asset service (which i think we've all agreed is something we should
support) but the use of the term "asset domain" to identify a domain
that exports an asset service.

--
meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
@OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * OhMeadhbh@gmail.com



On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 11:17 AM, James Hughes <jamesh@bluewallgroup.com> wrote:
> On 03/29/2010 01:16 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick wrote:
> ...
>> 1. there's a high quality implementation of an asset service out there
>> (cable beach) which _could_ be deployed independently of an OpenSim or
>> LL instance. does this mean we should have an "asset domain"?
>>
>>
> It would make sense to me to have that capability. The 3rd party asset
> services will need to provide functions to interact with both agent and
> region domains according to subscription rules and agreements entered
> into by operating entities and users. Depending on the rule-set, maybe
> the avatar can or cannot see particular inventory items on certain
> grids. Or, perhaps, region domains will need to negotiate the ability to
> rez or distribute objects based on the rule-sets applied at the 3rd
> party service.
>
> It seems pretty complex to administrate with a 3rd party. And, in my
> opinion, defining an asset domain to operate in would be useful. Just my
> OS$2.
>
> regards
> James  (BlueWall)
>
>
>