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

[Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>]

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/ * [e-mail]



On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:14 PM, David W Levine <[e-mail]> 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/ * [e-mail]
>>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>