Re: [ogpx] verbiage : domain, agent domain, region domain, trust domain, service, etc.
Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com> Mon, 29 March 2010 21:42 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 574FE3A6B82; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:42:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.123
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.123 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.008, BAYES_50=0.001, 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 HTcTi8eR5Epy; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com (qw-out-2122.google.com [74.125.92.24]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A26E43A6B7A; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 9so415864qwb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:42:37 -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; bh=UJDcjFci1piB3CpJRrQR7t2RgK08HisyjcbKtZjiETc=; b=veF9bQridV+Sox8ngmX9FKulxOB3fPHiZum4c1W0GZgSuJ28BJuBx2na3MGiie7e5w NAEe8vvYlKeA1FVC+FVE+dbMejPvbpWugFrWd0Jr+MxZq+591orrJEb3YzegrWVvo+PD 1dla/NF2P8hCdIMgADLs63O/Tdomo6Icxg/aI=
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; b=MY0zjkQBgICcmu1QInEu3E64lmAmf67Mt0jwURMRBKjmDR6WdtiWvICz4QSAeUgym8 HsdQJFMzBRhWZGZEJg1rrJuCjAmjaRxriUIM1czmRwQizIKZxa9gnFg578hBBG44Ix2v ewPqNq9DsorIXKfkuoGrrYDKs5xBkfp+mOpRA=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.20.209 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:42:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <b325928b1003291441v32ea8504t2431ecb681fd87ba@mail.gmail.com>
References: <b325928b1003291016i5c07e6d9na0feda9faf930aeb@mail.gmail.com> <OFBFBED893.69AA3E2B-ON852576F5.006184FA-852576F5.0071ECAF@us.ibm.com> <b325928b1003291354r37aa88daq1bebc63c5d65e6af@mail.gmail.com> <OF6751600F.91798AA3-ON852576F5.00734CF3-852576F5.0074B3AA@us.ibm.com> <b325928b1003291441v32ea8504t2431ecb681fd87ba@mail.gmail.com>
From: Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:42:17 -0700
Received: by 10.229.104.195 with SMTP id q3mr664926qco.56.1269898957183; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:42:37 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <b325928b1003291442p77cee24do57eb8031257f8286@mail.gmail.com>
To: David W Levine <dwl@us.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: ogpx-bounces@ietf.org, 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 21:42:13 -0000
in other words, "we've been saying 'agent domain' for at least two years and this is the thing we're hung up on????" -- meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve" @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * OhMeadhbh@gmail.com On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:14 PM, David W Levine <dwl@us.ibm.com> wrote: >> [stuff removed] >>> >>> the terms "asset domain" and "region domain" are used to identify the >>> domain of certain types of transactions in the protocol. their use >>> underscores the potential separation of the roles each domain plays. >>> >> >> In some deployments mayhap. Not in all. The roles the domain plays in these >> examples is a deployment choice, nothing more. There may be some trust/admin >> patterns which are common, but then we need to focus on those rather than >> thinking calling it an "agent domain" is clarifying. > > i don't agree with this statement. it is confusing that a region > domain would host agent services and an agent domain host region > services. it doesn't seem confusing that a domain could be > simultaneously a region domain and an agent domain. > > the term "agent domain" identifies the domain that begins certain > types of protocol transactions. if your deployment choice is to have > the agent and region domains be the same domains, then bully for you. > but it doesn't change the fact that there is a collection of hosts > (possibly with a single member, but probably not) that will initiate > certain types of protocol interchanges, and a collection of hosts > (possibly with a single member, but probably not) that will respond to > these interchanges. > >> >> >>> so the terms "agent domain" and "region domain" are "positional" and >>> describe the function in a protocol transaction, NOT a requirement >>> that a group of machines implement a particular cluster of services. >>> -- >>> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve" >>> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * OhMeadhbh@gmail.com >>> >> >> But, positional terms which describe specific patterns, which are deployment >> choices rather >> than functional requirements actually confuse not clarify. > > what? no matter what you do, you will have a deployment pattern. no > matter what you do, you will have a host that a request initiates from > and a host that is the target of the request. calling one an "agent > host in an agent domain" clarifies the role the host and domain play, > not the deployment pattern. > > if you wanted to deploy chargen, VWRAP authentication and gopher on a > single host, it's still an agent host for the purposes of the > authentication transaction. > >> >>> so we would say, "the agent domain initiates the process of placing an >>> agent in a region domain's simulator" rather than "the first service >>> initiates the process of placing an agent in a region." >> >> It might. Or the authentication service might give you NOTHING more than a >> sheaf of >> seed caps each on a stand-alone service which is separately deployed. (I >> think that's >> not going to be the most common deployment pattern, but its certainly one >> you could deploy, >> and one we need to be able to describe. >> >> Unless we can say "This is a term which always cuts things into separable >> parts", I think we're >> confusing deployment with architecture. To the degree you can say why "Agent >> Domain" is more >> explanatory than saying "This common cluster of services" in which case I'm >> perfectly happy saying that. But >> I'm thinking that beyond a very small cluster (Auth, IM endopint, Presence >> broadcast, and even those could be delegated) I'm not sure what HAS to be in >> an Agent Domain, rather than what many people will CHOSE to put in one. >> > > my recommendation is that the term "agent domain" be "positional" > indicating the role of an actor in a protocol transaction. it DOES NOT > imply service deployment clustering. > > a domain is an agent domain for the purposes of authentication if it > responds to the authentication protocol. it is a region domain for the > purposes of teleport if it responds to the teleport protocol. etc. > etc. if you want to put both services on one machine, it is > simultaneously an agent domain and a region domain. > > note also that there's nothing in this description that demands that > there be a single agent domain. you could have an agent domain for > authentication or an agent domain for IM and they could be the same or > different agent domains. > > -cheers > -meadhbh > >> Please note I think this is exactly the discussion we *should* be having. We >> need to make it clear what the term >> is actually buying us, and how we could benefit from it. >> >> - David >> ~Zha >> >> >
- [ogpx] verbiage : domain, agent domain, region do… Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [ogpx] verbiage : domain, agent domain, regio… James Hughes
- Re: [ogpx] verbiage : domain, agent domain, regio… Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [ogpx] verbiage : domain, agent domain, regio… Morgaine
- Re: [ogpx] verbiage : domain, agent domain, regio… David W Levine
- Re: [ogpx] verbiage : domain, agent domain, regio… Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [ogpx] verbiage : domain, agent domain, regio… Morgaine
- Re: [ogpx] verbiage : domain, agent domain, regio… David W Levine
- Re: [ogpx] verbiage : domain, agent domain, regio… Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [ogpx] verbiage : domain, agent domain, regio… Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [ogpx] verbiage : domain, agent domain, regio… Morgaine
- Re: [ogpx] verbiage : domain, agent domain, regio… Robert G. Jakabosky
- Re: [ogpx] verbiage : domain, agent domain, regio… Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [ogpx] verbiage : domain, agent domain, regio… Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [ogpx] verbiage : domain, agent domain, regio… Robert G. Jakabosky
- Re: [ogpx] verbiage : domain, agent domain, regio… David W Levine
- Re: [ogpx] verbiage : domain, agent domain, regio… Morgaine