Re: [ogpx] Protocol for permitting policy decisions

There are two cases here:

   1. When the source R1 and destination R2 regions belong to the same
   administering authority, then it is a reasonable optimization for serialized
   agent data to be transferred directly from R1 to R2.
   2. In contrast, when they belong to different administrations then there
   is a privacy concern (as various people have mentioned), since it is no
   business of R1's to know that the agent is going to R2 nor any business of
   R2's to know that the agent came from R1.

As long as we consider the direct R1->R2 shortcut to be a *local* *
optimization*, we're fine, since both privacy and efficiency can be
satisfied in the distinct cases where each one is appropriate.  I think that
this is a reasonable implementation note that we could add to the protocol
specification.

What the teleport specification must *not* do however is to mandate a direct
R1-R2 network connection, since that would deny case 2).

Morgaine.

=====================================

On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 5:58 PM, David W Levine <dwl@us.ibm.com> wrote:

>
> Region 1 (the source) holds the current state of the avatar. Running
> scripts in attachments, in particular. Without the source region
> participating, you end up having no way to
> retrieve that state, nor a way to know when that region can stop simulating
> the avatar.  Now.. You could go R1->AD->R2 which would obviate the privacy
> concern, but you end up
> with a pass through the "Not present in any region" state which might be
> disconcerting. (You also add at least one set of transactions to the dance,
> which, again isn't too bad)
> For edge crossings and TPs within a single "domain" that seems awfully
> expensive.
>
> - David
> ~ Zha
>
>
>
>  *Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>*
>
> 10/15/2009 06:54 AM
>   To
> Vaughn Deluca <vaughn.deluca@gmail.com>
>  cc
> David W Levine/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, Infinity Linden <infinity@lindenlab.com>om>,
> Meadhbh Hamrick <meadhbh.siobhan@gmail.com>om>, "ogpx@ietf.org" <
> ogpx@ietf.org>gt;, "ogpx-bounces@ietf.org" <ogpx-bounces@ietf.org>rg>, Magnus
> Zeisig <magnus.zeisig@iis.se>
>  Subject
> Re: [ogpx] Protocol for permitting policy decisions
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:44:56PM +0200, Vaughn Deluca wrote:
> > (8) AD1---(Rez avatar cap) ---> Derez avatar cap
> > The stored Derez avatar cap is a URI pointing to the current region of
> the
> > avatar, in this case RS1.1
>
> Why is this step needed?
>
> > (9) RS1.1---(POST)---> Rez avatar cap
> > The Rez avatar cap is un URI pointing to the destination region of the
> avatar,
> > in this case RS2.1
>
> Why is RS1.1 involved in the TP to RS2.1?
> This seems to mean that:
> a) RS1.1 can stop a successful TP away from RS1.1 to RS2.1
> b) RS1.1 learns about where an avatar TPs away to (privacy issue)
>
> > (10) RS2.1---( Rez avatar result)---> RS1.1
> >
> > (11) RS1.1---(Rez avatar result)---> AD1
>
> Same thing; there is no need for RS1.1 to be 'in between' this, is there?
>
> > (12) AD1---(Place avatar result, Rez avatar result)--->  viewer
> > The viewer can now contact the region.
>
> --
> Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> ogpx@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>