0.6 Tasks Requiring Further Discussion - Channel/message prioritization and three phase handshake

[Tommi Laukkanen]

Something new which came up for discussion from Kristalli protocol
review and discussion with Jukka Jylänki from LudoCraft:

1) Evaluate whether channel prioritization should be supported by
giving channels priorities and choosing messages to be send based on
that priority.

2) Evaluate whether three phase handshake should be used to allow the
server to verify that the response packet it sent was transported
correctly back to client instead of going immediately and possibly
falsely to connected state after sending connection response.

-tommi

[arkowitz]

1) MXP was supposed to be based on spatial awareness, not channels. I
believe all this worry about channels and prioritization is a legacy
of environments where it is important to know definitively "who shot
whom". MXP's model is one of participation, where what happens
happens. We should be careful not to go too far with channels... why
reproduce Darkstar?

2) Authentication is, of course, very important. Please don't talk
about a "server" though. MXP has no server. It has hub processes and
they are purely for facilitating communication. I agree that an
important service of the hub process should be good identification of
the participants so they know for sure with whom they are
participating; authentication implies some rules about who is allowed
to participate in which bubble; this issue overlaps into the needed
discussion of bubble directories and authority of some participant to
start a bubble with such-and-such coordinate system and land content,
and such-and-such neighbour bubbles... and then decide who is allowed
to participate in that...

Arkowitz

On Feb 8, 10:20 am, Tommi Laukkanen <tommi.s.e.laukka...@gmail.com>
wrote: