[Opensim-dev] The essence of "grid"

Wed Apr 15 12:30:53 UTC 2009

I have imagined a scenario where a user service exists that authenticates
the user and provides credentials to whatever place they may travel. And
possibly provides an inventory service for the user as well. The service is
not, necessarily, anything but a standalone user service, much like an email
provider. The user can login via the service travel to various places, their
identity guaranteed by the user service and their inventory with them
wherever they travel.

I see a variety of asset services. Some with the ability to determine
through digital signatures whether a new upload is authentic and whether it
should be allowed/disallowed based on the users credentials and the
signature of the author. I see some of these being content creator/content
distribution centric and provided as a service for wide content
distribution. These would also hold some bearing on the enforcement of
licenses for the content, for instance, where the item can be rezzed. And I
see some as being utility asset services hosted by entities with connected
regions for the management of local/near assets.

And, I see connected groups of regions based around specific themes, ideas
or goals. Destinations that allow or disallow travel to a user based on
policy set by the connecting entity. Not necessarily  providing a user
service, but rather a consumer of the user service. Not necessarily
providing an asset service, beyond servicing local needs. But, more of a
consumer of the widely distributed asset services. The policy may require a
registration before allowing the user, and may allow or disallow entry based
on a set of preset criteria.

Also, user/group centric messaging services that span the infrastructure to
allow users and groups to communicate, offer teleports and inventory to each
other regardless of their location.

If we think in terms of openness and distributed services that provide a
better experience for the user, it allows a more useful infrastructure to
develop. And, if we think of  a grid as a UGAIM with a bunch of connected
regions backed by a hall of lawyers and a bank, we don't get too far.

Thanks,
BlueWall

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 4:52 AM, Thomas Grimshaw <tom at streamsense.net>wrote:

> I know i'm pretty much a newcomer to this scene, but i'd like to throw
> my two pence into the midst.
>
> First of all, i'm not a big fan of beaurocracatic discussions about the
> theory behind "what a grid is"; principally because we're not building a
> grid, we're building a platform - a platform which may have reaches far
> different from any scopes and concepts which we individually may retain.
>
> One thing which really provoked a reaction from me in Melanie's response
> was this:
>
>  "being forced to share asset and inventory servers"
>
> Is that really such a bad thing? I have to be honest, I have not met a
> single person in second life, OSgrid, reactiongrid, openlife, k-grid,
> who has said to me "You know what, what we really need is asset
> segregation and to make content harder to find."
>
> Here's my viewpoint, in a summary.
>
> - Security is a good thing.  Real security, as in, stuff which prevents
> attacks, helps to keep the grid stable, etc.
>
> - Please let's not provide a platform which promotes segregation. If
> you're really looking for the definition of a "grid", i believe there is
> a definite conflict of interest with this approach.
>
> - Let's look to the future, and not base the way we think on constructs
> already in place. No matter committed you think we are to the "linden
> designed protocol" - things can change in a matter of days.
>
> - I can easily predict the availability in the future of "asset farms"
> which are linked in to multiple grids.  I think this is the right
> approach, please don't push things in the other direction.
>
> ~T
>
> Melanie wrote:
> > I believe that, for technical purposes, a "grid" should indeed be
> > seen as a trust domain. That was what the protocol was designed for
> > and bending it to anything else would be very painful and not
> > entirely successful, feature-wise. The Linden-designed protocol
> > elements are best suited to that situation, and the HG ones are best
> > suited to untrusted connections.
> > OSGrid really does straddle the fence in many respects, but I think
> > it will change over time and become HG connected rather than
> > grid-structured. The server-centric region handoff system doesn't
> > allow for any level of content protection and being forced to share
> > asset and inventory servers is no longer needed in the new
> > architecture that Diva and I hashed out last night.
> > We would, indeed, arrive at a secure Hypergrid, and a true 3d
> > internet, much sooner if we made that distinction and considered a
> > "grid" as we know it today a trust domain.
> >
> >  From that follows:
> > Region = Webpage
> > Grid = Website
> > Hypergrid = Internet
> >
> > The operator of a complex, multipage website needs trust between
> > it's pages, and so the operator of a complex HG site with many
> > regions needs trust between them.
> >
> > Melanie
> >
> >
> > Diva Canto wrote:
> >
> >> As I zoom in on issues of trust and security, I'm getting to the point
> >> where I need a sharp definition of "grid". What is a grid, besides being
> >> a map/lookup service and a user accounts service?
> >>
> >> a) nothing more than that
> >> b) a trust domain
> >>
> >> If we choose b) then we need to think about OSGrid-like grids. How can
> >> we trust that a collection of regions administered by different people
> >> will behave? Can OSGrid-like grids survive without ToS being signed
> >> between the grid operator and the region operators? What if the ToS is
> >> such that it delegates to the region admins any liability on bad things
> >> happening in their regions? -- that leaves the user with no central
> >> authority to complain, which is as good as not having a trust domain.
> >>
> >> If OSGrid-like grids (i.e. no contracts, or very loose ones; just a map
> >> service) are to exist, then it's clear that b) doesn't hold in general.
> >> It means that there can be grids that are simply a collection of regions
> >> that come together in virtual space, but whose trustworthiness as a
> >> whole doesn't exist.
> >>
> >> The Hypergrid is specifically designed to cross trust boundaries. Should
> >> the OSGrid-like grids become HG-ed sims that share the same map, and let
> >> "grids" be, fully, trust domains?
> >>
> >> You may think I'm getting into philosophy, but this is critical for the
> >> technical work I'm doing right now related to authentication,
> >> server-side vs client-side authority, etc. If we can assume that a
> >> "grid" is a uniform trust domain with a central authority, things will
> >> be simpler in many ways. If not, things will be a bit more complicated.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Opensim-dev mailing list
> >> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> >> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Opensim-dev mailing list
> > Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20090415/c8d409cd/attachment-0001.html>