[Opensim-dev] OGPX and IETF-ing things

[Mike Dickson]

I don't have as much concern that things are done using the IETF
process.  That's IMO the appropriate place for some of the work given in
some cases they're extending protocols already specified via IETF RFC's.
Since OGP and hypergrid really sort of imply collaboration between
multiple providers doing the work in specification form where there's
agreement upfront as to what needs to be implemented seems appropriate
(to me).

That doesn't in any way remove the need or the value of/for
implementations.  But RFC's are meant to be revised over time. Some of
the OGP work appears to be starting from existing practice and that at
least *has* existed in implementation for a while. Certainly room for
improvement but again, IMO thats what the RFC process is for. To
formalize how things are specified and how they've evolved over time.

hypergrid may be more focused on research (Cristina, you're the best
person to speak to that of course). Again, high value but it doesn't
obviate the need or benefit of the OGP work, IMO.

So I think the IETF process is a positive thing from my perspective. I'm
on the mailing lists and will follow the work and contribute where I can
and where its appropriate.

Mike

On Wed, 2009-06-03 at 19:37 +0000, Cristina Videira Lopes wrote:
> Inifinity sent me a very nice private message, which, because it was  
> private, I'm not going to forward here. But the bottom line of his  
> nice message could use some public discussion. Essentially Infinity  
> is suggesting that we move towards getting the Hypergrid work into  
> the IETF, through this newly created OGPX working group.
> 
> Personally, I think this is all premature. IETF-ing the Hypergrid is  
> premature for different reasons than IETF-ing OGP is premature. The  
> Hypergrid is not really ready for prime time until we have the  
> Hypergrid2 in place, with its security model to protect users from  
> malicious simulators. OGP is not ready for prime time because no one  
> has seen it yet, at least not any reasonably complete implementation  
> of it.
> 
> The right thing to do, I think, is to first have implementations of  
> both OGP and the Hypergrid2 in OpenSim. Once that is in place, we can  
> all see the similarities and differences, and try to standardize the  
> similar pieces. Alternatively, we can try to work together towards  
> one single interop protocol, but honestly I think that's not going to  
> happen, simply because there is space for many (not just 2, but 3 or 4)
> 
> What I suspect will happen is that OGP and the Hypergrid will have  
> several pieces that are very much in sync, with small details that  
> are different, and then they will have a few really important pieces  
> that are substantially different. Things like posting/retrieving  
> agents to/from regions, for example, we already converged to using  
> REST; inventory access, we already converged to using capability  
> URLs, etc. Small details such as the format of the data on the wire  
> are different, but that doesn't really matter as long as we agree  
> that the Content-type can be set to different things.
> 
> The thing that will be substantially different is the issue of  
> authority: what component has authority to do what. In OGP regions  
> are still the ones doing agent transfers, therefore implying a trust  
> relation between interacting grids that must be established in some  
> non-technical manner (i.e. the receiving region trusts that the  
> sending region is not stealing the user's identity). In the  
> Hypergrid, agent transfers between non-trusting regions are done on  
> the client side, so that the identity of the user can always be  
> verified, there is no region in the middle acting on behalf of anyone.
> 
> So, that's the main difference, as far as I understand OGP.
> 
> The Hypergrid2 is in place through a proof-of-concept prototype  
> client (Grider) and a couple of small but horrible hacks in OpenSim.  
> OGP implementations don't exist yet, or they are not available to us  
> which is the same. I think there's a lot of work to do before we go  
> and propose any of this as standards.
> 
> But I thought I'd bring this up for discussion. Maybe other people  
> aren't as strict on working implementations as I am.
> 
> Crista
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev