Re: [ogpx] VWRAP Draft Charter - 2009 09 01

[Infinity Linden <[e-mail]>]

silence does not mean agreement.

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Carlo Wood <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Nobody reacted to this post of me so far,
> does that mean everyone agrees?
>
> On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 03:23:35AM +0200, Carlo Wood wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 06:25:22PM -0400, David W Levine wrote:
>> > We need to be careful, when looking at this stuff to strike a balance between
>> > focusing on the current deployed clusterings, and turning everything into soup.
>> > That said, the actual deployed systems which implement these specifications are
>> > only going to be able
>> > to enforce policy at the interfaces we define, and these interfaces are on
>> > services, not domains.
>>
>> It is because we can't allow *every* possible deployment to be supported (soup)
>> that I brought up my worries about which service should determine policy (ToS).
>>
>> It would be easy to choose a simplification (== not allow every possibility)
>> that leaves out a deployment that is essential, imho.
>>
>> My proposal was this:
>>
>> The AD can only allow a user to connect to (teleport to) a region (domain)
>> or not. If it allows a user to teleport there, then everything that that
>> domain allows is allowed.
>>
>> I probably should have been more clear about this from the beginning:
>> this (my concern) has everything to do with where Abuse Reports go to:
>> Once a user is in a given region and breaks a policy (or not) and someone
>> else wants to report this user, then the only authority that this report
>> should go to is the administration of the region (personally, I even
>> advocate the sim, but alas).
>>
>> If to whomever an 'abuse report' goes has nothing to do with VWRAP
>> than we can skip this topic; but I think it might be relevant and it
>> is certainly something we need to keep in mind while designing the
>> protocol (to make sure that won't go wrong).
>>
>> Example:
>>
>> Region RD1 runs on servers in country X whose laws state that adult
>> content may be accessed at the age of 16 or older. However, the
>> administration of RD1 has it in their ToS that one has to be 18.
>> They do not see a reason to ban people of age 16 or 17 however.
>>
>> Agentd AD2 is seated in another country where one has to be 21 before
>> one is allowed to access adult content.  AD2 does age verification.
>>
>> If a person of age 18 logs in with AD2 and tries to TP to RD1 then
>> * AD2 may disallow that if they so choose.
>> * If AD2 allows the TP, than the user is allowed to access adult
>>   content by the ToS of RD1 if their age is 18 or older.
>>
>> If the user lives in a country where 18 is old enough as well,
>> than I don't think that it matters (legally) where the AD2 is
>> seated: the administration of AD2 cannot be sued for allowing
>> a person to teleport to RD1 (I hope :p).
>>
>> ***************************************************************
>> * Hence, it is possible to apply the simplication:            *
>> *- AD policies ONLY come into play at the moment of teleport  *
>> *  (allow or not).                                            *
>> *- Once arrived in a new region, the policies of the AD can   *
>> *  be 'forgotten' and only the policies of the RD apply.      *
>> *  If the AD doesn't want that, they shouldn't allow the TP.  *
>> ***************************************************************
>>
>> We shouldn't take this simplification (or deployment limitation) too
>> lightly, but I think it is one that will work VERY well in practice
>> and well worth it, as it's benefits will far outweight the disadvantages,
>> imho.
>>
>> If anyone can think of a clear counter example where a TP should
>> be allowed but still the AD ToS should determine what is allowed
>> and what not, please let us know.
>>
>> A clear advantage of this simplification is that it makes
>> it trivial where an Abuse Report would go to: namely the to the
>> administration of the Region (domain).
>>
>> A clear disadvantage of NOT making this simplification is that
>> it would be totally unclear where Abuse Reports have to go, and
>> that lots of confusion will arise about who can do what and why
>> they can and you not.
>>
>> --
>> Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ogpx mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
> --
> Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>