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

[Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 09:10:13AM -0700, Joshua Bell wrote:
> Without diving in too deep, I believe this thread is putting up a two-level
> false dichotomy - either the RD determines policy or the AD determines policy,
> OR things aren't sensible w/o nil trust. If that's a mis-reading, my apologies.
> 
> IMHO, it should be apparent that both AD (which is the agent/advocate for the
> user) and RD (where the user wants to be) both need to make policy decisions.

I'd formulate this as: It is the destination (the region (domain) that the user
is in) that determines the ToS. This is something else than the RD making
protocol-level policy decisions. The link between RD and ToS is in most cases
not really a technical one (it will only require to use the current region
to get relevant arguments for some messages).

> A corporate AD may restrict where users may visit (e.g. agentd.corp.example.com
> may say "no visiting party.example.com from work!") or an AD may restrict users
> based on personal preferences (agentd.safesurf.example.com may say "
> scam.example.com is on a shared blacklist of malicious sites, teleport
> blocked"), legal or political requirements (agentd.kidfriendly.example.com may
> say "you can't visit adultgrid.example.com"). Note that in all cases the AD is
> enforcing policy as an agent of the user, just as a web browser on a local
> network does today.

Of course (excellent examples).

The AD determines if you are allowed to teleport somewhere or not.
Every example you give is about denying teleport: the user is not allowed to
go the desired destination.

However, if the user *is* allowed to go to the desired destination then
depending on that destination restriction will still apply, and those
restrictions will in most cases be a function of that destination.

For example agentd.A.and.B.allowed.example.com will allow teleports
to region.A.allowed.example.com and region.B.allowed.example.com,
but once there, only A or B is allowed, for everyone in that region,
independent of the agent domain.  An agentd.A.and.B.are.evil.com would
not allow their users to even go to those regions.

> Presumably, there will exist many ADs that provide no
> restrictions whatsoever, just as most Web browsers accessing the 'net via most
> ISPs in most countries today don't restrict access to Web content via policy.
> 
> On the flip side, the RD will also have policy. Corporate VWs may limit access
> to employees. Adult-centric VWs may limit access to agents from ADs that verify
> accounts with some well known service. Real-world-region-specific RDs may
> require citizenship checks and deny access to citizens of some nation-states.

These are again about access restrictions, which is not my concern.

> And of course permissions would doubtless exist on a per-user basis as well as
> per-AD. Again - no different than access permissions today on the Web, except
> that instead of being a two-party user/service, it's three party user/AD/RD.
> And one hopes that, like most of the Web, content is freely visitable by all.
> 
> On the topic of nil-trust: again, I wholeheartedly support the stance that the
> protocol should support nil trust operation. I hope that both the protocol and
> operations of VWRAP-based worlds allow the bulk of VWRAP traffic to occur in a
> nil trust environment, just like the Web does today. However, I *suspect* that,
> in practical terms, the abilities we want to grant to regions by visiting them
> - to display our avatars, to broadcast information about our agents, to give
> and receive virtual goods - will require at least a modicum of trust for most
> VW interaction, at least on the level of an SSL-style secured connection that
> gives users a certificate to look at that provides some identity/trust
> information about the service provider.
> 
> I suspect I'm going to beat this drum a lot - "VWs are just like the Web,
> except where they're different" :)
> 
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Morgaine <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
>     Hi Vaughn! :-)
> 
>     Your description of our discussion is quite accurate.  However, it seems to
>     imply that I advocate in favour of the view that the AD must be the seat of
>     all policy for connected regions.  I do not.  I was merely explaining the
>     architecture of AD+RD pairing as it has been described to us repeatedly
>     throughout the two years of our OGP-related work in the LL+IBM sponsored
>     Architecture Working Group within Second Life.
> 
>     After the emails, Carlo and I examined this issue with higher discussion
>     bandwidth inside SL, and it turned out that we were describing two
>     different things:  I was explaining the AD+RD relationship in OGP, while
>     Carlo was describing RDs as they should be designed if an RD were an
>     autonomous unit with its own policies, effectively a small world.  If OGP
>     were designed differently and less restrictively to allow that, then there
>     would have been no discussion.  :-)
> 
>     Of course, OGP is not VWRAP, but only the seedcorn for VWRAP.  We can make
>     VWRAP as flexible as we like, and it's easy to see its potential
>     flexibility in David's deployments document.  Consequently, I have high
>     hopes that all parties will be happy with the eventual outcome. :-)
> 
>     You may have missed the primary reason why I do not advocate a design in
>     which an OGP-style AD is the seat of all power, possibly because the
>     discussion has been spread out across all of OGPX and MMOX.  It's easy to
>     summarize in one sentence though:  such a design cannot underpin an
>     Internet-wide metaverse of interoperating virtual worlds because it doesn't
>     respect the key meme of virtual and non-virtual tourism:  Destination
>     Determines Policy.
> 
>     This meme is so fundamental and crucial (and obvious) that OGP's support of
>     the exact opposite is terminally broken, as a basis for the hypothetical
>     metaverse.  Indeed, you yourself have referred to the problem in the funny
>     "war over purple". :-)  At best such a design can support only a random
>     scattering of VPN-like walled gardens, all isolated and incapable of
>     interoperating because they all claim the "one true policy".  We should not
>     go there.
> 
>     The most recent description of this problematic aspect of the OGP design
>     was posted by Magnus Zeisig in his excellent email at http://www.ietf.org/
>     mail-archive/web/ogpx/current/msg00324.html , which I fully support.  Such
>     balkanization is not a desireable goal when designing a VW interop
>     protocol.
> 
>     So where are we now?  We're at the stage of examining David's VWRAP
>     deployment patterns to see how the protocol can support them.  And in that
>     examination, it is likely to become clear that the old OGP model of "AD
>     determines policy" is completely non-viable for interoperating between
>     VWRAP-compatible virtual worlds, except when that policy is "nil trust" as
>     a common denominator.
> 
>     Consequently, we will either decide to live with the original OGP split and
>     use "nil trust" as our basis for VW interop, or else we will redesign the
>     AD/RD relationship to place many more important policy decisions where they
>     really belong, at destination.  The latter seems the best choice to me, and
>     of course it would make Carlo happy, and it is also the model that every
>     single existing world already operates --- when in Rome, do as the Romans
>     do.  Only the old OGP AD/RD two-way split design is out of step.  Let's
>     hope that we can correct that in VWRAP. :-))
> 
> 
>     Morgaine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     ====================================
> 
> 
> 
>     On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Vaughn Deluca <[e-mail]>
>     wrote:
> 
>         Carlo and Morgaine have above been involved in a very interesting
>         discussion about the nature of the (or *a*) virtual world. 
> 
>         Painting their positions with  broad strokes, Morgaine stresses the
>         primary role of the AD as the seat of policy and trust, up to the point
>         where he denies the RD any role above that of a convenient extension of
>         the AD, i.e. the RD as "colony without a government". Carlo
>         passionately argues for the independent role of the RD in policy
>         issues.
> 
>         I feel that both positions are valid (to some degree), and both can be
>         covered by VWRAP.
> 
>         Calo makes absolutely clear that having all policy in the respective
>         ADs of the avatars leads to problems when several avatars meet in one
>         region domain, say RD1. Avatars will be busy killing each other over
>         the right to wear purple, and for the innocent bystanders caught in the
>         crossfire it will be fully unclear were to complain. Stepping in
>         Morgaines shoes, i think i would argue that what Carlo asks for can be
>         realised by applying the policy of a *particular* AD to RD1. The rules
>         to deal with color of clothes, could be formulated in AD1 associated
>         with RD1. In principle Carlo could run this domain himself, even
>         without a single avatar in it, and in this way get his "government" and
>         set any policy he wants. If two avatars from AD2 and AD3 visit RD1, The
>         policy in RD1 would be governed by what is specified by AD1.
> 
>         While this fully fits Morgaines view of "AD rules all", and also fits
>         Carlo call for autonomy of RD1, it feels decidedly like a kludge, and
>         in this particular case it seems much more straightforward to make RD1
>         more autonomous. Yet, to keep everything within one framework, this
>         kludge seems to be the logical solution... I would like to hear what
>         others think about this.
> 
>         One other remark: the minimal example for  a "world"  -one AD and one
>         RD- would be more useful when extended with one asset service AS.
>         Explicit mentioning of the AS will make it much easier to discuss IP
>         issues. 
> 
>         Vaughn
> 
> 
> 
>         On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Carlo Wood <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>             On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 06:43:06AM +0100, Morgaine wrote:
>             > Carlo asked for detailed comments on the below, so here goes. :-)
>             >
>             >
>             > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>
>             wrote:
>             >
>             >     On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 04:28:03AM +0100, Morgaine wrote:
>             >     > The problem you see is that a virtual world is much more
>             than just a
>             >     Region
>             >     > Domain.  It is a complete set of services of which the
>             Region Domain
>             >     service is
>             >     > just one.  Other typical services might be those of the
>             Agent Domain
>             >     (which
>             >     > provides identification and authorization services and
>             possibly others),
>             >     as
>             >     > well as asset and inventory services, IM and other
>             communication
>             >     services, and
>             >     > maybe several more.
>             >
>             >     Well... that is purely semantic. It is a way to define VW,
>             but not one that
>             >     I've been using :/
>             >
>             >
>             > It's a rough top-level projection of the architectural model of
>             VWRAP, once the
>             > various services have been decoupled in the way that David Levine
>             often
>             > describes to us.  Nothing very contentious there, everyone likes
>             a
>             > services-oriented approach. :-)
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >     For simplicity, assume that only two things are needed to
>             create a complete
>             >     virtual world, like SL or OG: A Region Domain (RD) and an
>             Agent Domain
>             >     (AD).
>             >
>             >
>             > I am happy to consider that simple scenario as representative.
>              It is quite
>             > reasonable to equate AD with VW because the AD is the focus of
>             almost all the
>             > policy decisions of a VWRAP-based world.  When other decoupled
>             services are
>             > added to this picture, it doesn't change the fundamental
>             architecture of AD +
>             > RDs, only extends it by decoupling more than just the region
>             service.  So
>             > that's fine with me.
> 
>             I totally disagree that the AD is the representative...and why do
>             you say
>             that below a sentence of me where I say "A Region Domain (RD) and
>             an Agent Domain (AD)"?
> 
>             This is like I say "VW = AD + RD", and you go: "yes, VW = AD". We
>             can't
>             have a discussion like that Morgaine.
> 
>             >     Currently, without any interop, each administrative entity
>             (or trust
>             >     entity)
>             >     will need to provide both: an RD *and* an AD, otherwise they
>             don't have a
>             >     functional VW.
>             >
>             >
>             > Correct.  The AD is the seat of most (but not all) of the policy
>             decisions of a
> 
>             I even *stressed* the '*and*' here, and you do it again.
> 
>             > VW, so it's very central to the existence of a VW.  While it's
>             possible to
>             > imagine policy-free VWs that temporarily  take on the policy of
>             any other world
>             > they hook up with, this is clearly a subset situation.  All the
>             currently known
>             > SL-like virtual worlds are grids of the SL kind, with their own
>             individual
>             > policies which they are not going to change on interop.
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >     Your conclusion is that a VW exist of both 1 RD and 1 AD. But
>             I ask you to
>             >     reconsider if that conclusion is correct, because it is based
>             on the
>             >     current
>             >     situation without any interop. Now "correct" might not be the
>             correct word
>             >     - heh.
>             >     Rather I should say: I ask you to reconsider if that
>             definition is very
>             >     useful.
>             >
>             >     Lets consider the following fictive case:
>             >
>             >     LL runs one RD and AD, called RD1 and AD1.
>             >     CB (Cable Beach) runs another RD and AD, called RD2 and AD2.
>             >     A user that authenticates with either AD1 or AD2 can travel
>             to RD1 AND RD2,
>             >     completely symmetrical, keeping their respective AD1- and
>             AD2- assets etc.
>             >     This is possible with the right policies, so for the sake of
>             looking at
>             >     the usefulness of the above definition of VW, assume this is
>             the case.
>             >
>             >
>             > That's not quite right because Cable Beach is not a world
>             provider like LL.
>             > Cable Beach is perhaps best described as a "login mediation"
>             mechanism or
> 
>             I might not understand what the real Cable Beach is or wants to be,
>             I was just
>             trying to give an example to work with. So, again:
> 
>             LL runs one RD and AD, called RD1 and AD1.
>             OG runs another RD and AD, called RD2 and AD2.
>             A user that authenticates with either AD1 or AD2 can travel to RD1
>             AND RD2,
>             completely symmetrical, keeping their respective AD1- and AD2-
>             assets etc.
>             This is possible with the right policies, so for the sake of
>             looking at
>             the usefulness of the above definition of VW, assume this is the
>             case.
> 
>             > protocol, which provides a model for interaction between a "world
>             service"
>             > (effectively an AD), the user's client, and various decoupled
>             services such as
>             > simulation nodes (possibly an RD) and inventory/asset services.
>              Let's assume
>             > therefore that your "CB" above means something different (another
>             world
>             > provider similar to LL), and then we can proceed with your
>             example case.
> 
>             Ok
> 
>             >     Would you consider "RD1 + AD1" one VW, and "RD2 + AD2" to be
>             another VW?
>             >     Or do you think it would make most sense in THIS case to
>             speak of a single
>             >     VW?
>             >
>             >
>             > They're two worlds because you defined them as such, as each has
>             its own AD.
>             > :-)  But that aside, if they were set up separately then they
>             have two
>             > different sets of policies, two different sets of residents, two
>             different
>             > ToS's, possibly two different legal jurisdictions, two different
>             mechanisms for
>             > abuse control and conflict resolution, and so on and so forth.
>              If they were
>             > created to be worlds that can stand alone but interoperate when
>             desired, then
>             > each of these is a diffferent world.  I don't see how that can be
>             disputed.
> 
>             As I stated in one of my first posts, it will (hopefully!!!) be
>             mainly the
>             the *RD* and NOT the AD that all of those things are a function of!
> 
>             You keep saying that it's mainly the AD that determines these
>             things, but
>             that would be confusing and very annoying. If two people meet in a
>             virtual
>             world, that is - if they are standing next to eachother in one
>             region and
>             using local chat - then they should fall under the same legal
>             jurisdiction
>             and the same ToS: it is the region that determines the rules, not
>             the AD
>             that they used to login with.
> 
>             As example, ToS1 says: it's ok to be naked; and ToS2 says: it's a
>             bannable
>             offence to be naked. Do you really think that it's even workable if
>             the
>             ToS to be applied is a function of the AD? Say you login using AD2,
>             so
>             ToS2 applies to you. You meet someone else that is naked. You know
>             that
>             you are not allowed to and you are offended. You create an abuse
>             report;
>             where does that report go to? To your AD administration? That makes
>             no
>             sense: that naked person is using a different AD. To his/her AD
>             administration
>             then? That makes also no sense since they allow it.
> 
>             Seriously, there is only one reasonable thing to do: the ToS that
>             applies
>             is a function of the Region Domain *only*, and if you write an
>             abuse report,
>             it should go to the administration of the region that you are in
>             and not
>             to your or the others AD administration. Same holds for the things
>             related
>             to legal jurisdiction and any other 'rules' that applies at any
>             given
>             moment (to users). The only thing that might be a function of the
>             AD are
>             technical policies that are automatically enforced by VWRAP.
> 
>             >     I think this is what Infinity means when she says that
>             "virtual world"
>             >     cannot
>             >     be defined, because what could be perceived as being a VW is
>             highly
>             >     dependend
>             >     on the exact situation (and policies) and in certain
>             configuration that are
>             >     not as clear as the current situation (no interop) or the
>             above example
>             >     (100%
>             >     interop).
>             >
>             >
>             > This is incorrect.  "Virtual world" is defined by each provider
>             of a virtual
>             > world and by nobody else, and each provider knows full well how
>             it is defined,
>             > what its boundaries are, and what makes it distinct.  Nobody else
>             can define
>             > what a virtual world is, and it's not our business to define it
>             either (nor to
>             > conjure up a fictitious definition).
> 
>             Sorry, but I think you should try harder to understand my point of
>             view first.
>             I didn't give the examples so you can ignore them.
> 
>             > We only need to define the protocol interactions at the endpoints
>             presented by
>             > those worlds, and not to define "virtual world" structurally nor
>             any other way.
>             >   Doing so is what has got us into this mess, by creating a
>             fictitious
>             > definition based on reachability and hence blocking any ability
>             to talk about
>             > actual virtual worlds.  Those worlds exist.  They won't go away.
>              They want to
>             > interoperate, but they don't want to be told that they don't
>             exist.
> 
>             I was trying to make you understand WHY Infinitely tells you they
>             don't "exist",
>             if you understand her (and you don't, imho) then it will be easier
>             to solve this
>             miscommunication.
> 
>             > The contention that we don't know what "virtual world" means is
>             just plain
>             > bizarre.
> 
>             Only if you already have a definition of "virtual world" they way
>             you do.
> 
>             > I don't know of any VW operator who doesn't know what their world
>             is.
> 
>             That is the *current* situation... which is 100% simpler than what
>             we'll
>             have in the future.
> 
>             Compare with math... currently we only have Integers (Z). We're
>             about
>             to introduce division and by that we need to extend the definition
>             of
>             'number' from Z to Q. Q aren't integers, even though currently
>             every
>             number is an integer doesn't mean you have to hold on tight the
>             "definition"
>             of "number" == integer. That definition will be broken and you will
>             have to redefine "number".
> 
>             >   Every single one of them could provide the necessary endpoints
>             for VWRAP
>             > within their world without any scratching of heads at the meaning
>             of "virtual
>             > world".  That repeated allegation has been a complete
>             misrepresentation.  It's
>             > just not true.
> 
>             You CANNOT define "virtual world" as "AD" (see above) nor as "AD +
>             RD" because
>             that is too simple and only holds in the current situation. You can
>             only, at most,
>             if you really want, say - well, lets define it as being some RD.
> 
>             > And possibly even worse is the excuse  that "virtual world" is
>             not being
>             > defined but is being used non-normatively, while in practice
>             using the phrase "
>             > the virtual world" to create a totally fictitious single virtual
>             world instead.
> 
>             I agree that as long as it isn't normatively defined, the term
>             shouldn't be
>             used in documents except in places where it can literally mean
>             anything without
>             that anyone will care (like in the protocol name).
> 
>             >   That phrase is unnecessary, it is misrepresentative of the
>             actual situation,
>             > it bypasses policy controls of one world by not mentioning its
>             AD, it prevents
>             > us from mentioning virtual worlds by blocking the normal meaning
>             of the term,
>             > and it provides nothing useful as a benefit in return.  Unless
>             total confusion
>             > is a benefit. ;-)
> 
>             Sorry, but that is like saying that defining the Rational Numbers
>             (Q) makes it
>             impossible to talk about 'numbers', because 3/7 isn't an integer.
>             What you have to do is let go of your current definition.
> 
>             >     In one of my first posts about this topic I stated that
>             "virtual world"
>             >     should
>             >     be considered to be the Region Domain (although I didn't use
>             that term at
>             >     the
>             >     moment) and be completely independent of the Agent Domain,
>             based on typical
>             >     cases of abuse and griefing etc: if anyone annoys some other
>             user, or
>             >     breaks
>             >     almost any ToS, it will be region based; which is why I've
>             always said that
>             >     any type of abuse can and should be handled at the sim
>             (single region)
>             >     level:
>             >     the estate owner and managers in SL, even, but that idea
>             definitely extends
>             >     to "world administrations": the people running the REGION
>             (domain) is the
>             >     one
>             >     that should decide what is the local ToS and deal with abuse
>             etc. That is
>             >     why I strongly argue to define "virtual world" as Region
>             Domain, and leave
>             >     the AD out of it. Nevertheless, now I have the term "Region
>             Domain" I don't
>             >     need "virtual world" anymore.
>             >
>             >
>             > But that's not how OGP is structured.  It's the AD that is the
>             focus of service
>             > policy choices in OGP, and it's the "world service" that is the
>             focus of
>             > service policy in Cable Beach.  The AD and the world service are
>             the source of
>             > capabilities that determine pretty much everything else, and the
>             region domain
>             > is very subsidiary to that.
> 
>             No, if the service prodiver of some AD disagrees with the (say) a
>             ToS that applies
>             when you go to some RD then they should disallow you go there; they
>             should not
>             allow you to go there and then demand that you follow their ToS,
>             that would not
>             be a practical solution that is workable.
> 
>             To use mathematics again, it's easy to make two ToS that have no
>             intersection:
>             Say, ToS1 says: you MUST wear purple clothes, and ToS2 says: you
>             MUST wear blue
>             clothes. Obviously those will apply to regions.
> 
>             So then we have:
> 
>             Provider1: RD1 --> TOS1 --> purple clothes
>             Provider2: RD2 --> TOS2 --> blue clothes
> 
>             *if* Provider 2 runs an AD (AD2) and they allow people logged in
>             with it
>             to go to region RD1 then the people there should wear purple
>             clothes:
>             TOS2 will not apply because of the AD you use.
> 
>             If it's against providers religious believe to support wearing
>             purple
>             clothes than they might disallow people to go to RD1, that is their
>             choice (policy).
> 
>             > Indeed, a region domain may have no policy of its
>             > own at all, but merely extend an existing virtual world by
>             accepting the
>             > policies of that world's AD.  That's the model in the original
>             OGP before it
>             > gained aspirations of becoming a cross-VW interop protocol.
> 
>             That makes no sense :/
> 
>             There can be any number of people in a given RD, and each can in
>             principle
>             be using a different AD! PLEASE let the RD determine the rules they
>             have
>             to live by! Anyone else that disagrees with me about that?!
> 
>             > If RDs determined VW policy and generated seed capabilities for
>             everything and
>             > ADs were merely login services then your model would apply, and
>             RD could be
>             > considered "VW".
> 
>             Ah! At last..
> 
>             > But that's not how it is currently structured --- RDs are
> 
>             If you are refering to OGP, then OGP should be changed.
> 
>             > merely the land + physical simulation components of worlds, and
>             in SL's case,
>             > also an elaborate system of proxies.  And that's why we need
>             multiple ADs to
>             > interact in VWRAP before we can consider that there is VW-VW
>             interop.  RDs
>             > don't handle it.
> 
>             What I seem to keep missing is the fact that VWRAP is already
>             completely
>             defined in those previous OGP documents and we're merely here to
>             rewrite
>             them in an IETF document of sorts.
> 
>             Yes we need multiple ADs to interact, and they will.
>             But yes, RD's will handle whatever they have to handle with VWRAP.
>             I never said that capabilities equal 'rules' (ToS and legal
>             jurisdiction
>             isn't something that should be enforced or controlled by the
>             protocol) by
>             the way.
> 
>             ... sorry my RSI forces me to stop typing here... shouldn't have
>             typed this much alrady anyway :(
> 
>             >     > In our new protocol, these services may either be
>             implemented internally
>             >     within
>             >     > a virtual world, or some might be implemented as external
>             services
>             >     offered by
>             >     > third parties, the choice being a policy and design
>             decision for each
>             >     world
>             >     > operator.  In all cases however, the virtual worlds are
>             defined by a set
>             >     of
>             >     > services, and not just by a Region Domain.
>             >
>             >
>             > Indeed.  But access to such decoupled services is provided by the
>             AD through
>             > the capabilities that it delivers to authorized parties, and
>             regions are just
>             > one such service.  You're giving RDs credit for something that
>             they don't do.
>             > :-)  Perhaps the VWRAP model should be redesigned along your
>             lines so that RDs
>             > become the VWs and are the generators of seed caps, and then ADs
>             become just a
>             > subservient policy-free login mechanism. :D
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >     I'm afraid that is purely a matter of opinion. I agree that
>             it is likely
>             >     that a single 'administrative entity' that runs a RD will
>             also run an AD
>             >     and allow users authenticated with their AD visit their RD,
>             but it is no
>             >     more than *likely*. There will almost certainly be service
>             provides that
>             >     ONLY run an AD, and don't have a RD! And I can imagine that
>             there will
>             >     be some that only run a RD and do not care about running
>             their own AD.
>             >
>             >
>             > Oh sure, there will be all combinations of services, that is to
>             be expected.
>             > But it is the seat of policy that is the heart of each virtual
>             world, and
>             > currently the seat of policy lies in the AD.  A VW that doesn't
>             have an AD in
>             > the VWRAP model is just a colony without a government, ready to
>             be assimilated
>             > into a world that has an AD and that therefore sets policies,
>             instead of being
>             > a sovereign world that merely wants to interop with that other
>             world through
>             > VWRAP.
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >     Therefore, "virtual world" cannot be synonym for "the set of
>             services
>             >     run by a single administrative entity" as you seem to argue,
>             and at
>             >     the SAME time be argued to include an RD *and* AD at all
>             times.
>             >
>             >
>             > I don't follow that.  Two worlds that can run independently
>             (that's very
>             > important) can certainly each be defined as a set of services
>             that includes the
>             > functions of an AD and an RD, and those worlds each continue to
>             include the
>             > functions of an AD and an RD even after they start interoperating
>             (assuming
>             > that VWRAP is extended to allow cross-VW interop).  No world is
>             going to give
>             > up part of its services portfolio on interop.  Interop is an
>             additional
>             > benefit, not a loss of capability.
>             >
>             > [It's worth noting that there may actually be a small loss of
>             capability
>             > occurring on interop in VWRAP, although it is rarely mentioned.
>              You can be
>             > present in two worlds simultaneously with the same login
>             credentials
>             > pre-interop (a feature that we enjoy currently between SL and
>             OSgrid for
>             > example), but post-interop this may no longer be possible --- it
>             depends on the
>             > implementation.  No doubt we will visit this issue within VWRAP.]
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >     > This is easy to see by looking at a couple of archetypal
>             examples in this
>             >     > space:
>             >     >
>             >     >
>             >     >     Is Second Life a virtual world?  Undoubtedly.  Is
>             Second Life just a
>             >     Region
>             >     >     Domain (assuming it were implemented using VWRAP)?  No,
>             of course
>             >     not, SL
>             >     >     includes all of the services mentioned above, and
>             others.
>             >
>             >     Of course, LL happens to run all services that are needed to
>             create one
>             >     virtual world; there are no third parties they can hire from
>             yet, so they
>             >     have to provide it all themselves.
>             >
>             >     But after SL implemented VWRAP they might decide to do away
>             from one of
>             >     their services and only keep their RD. Unlikely, but
>             possible.
>             >
>             >
>             > You're confusing RD functionality with AD functionality again
>             there.  The AD is
>             > the heart of a world because it defines its capabilities and
>             policies.  The RD
>             > is just a pile of region hosts that could easily be farmed out to
>             a third party
>             > to run without them determining policy, and indeed this is
>             already being done.
>             > While it is a very important pile of hosts which gives a world
>             its physical
>             > characterists, the RD is a subservient service to the AD in OGP,
>             just as the
>             > equivalent "simulation nodes" provide a subservient service to
>             the "world
>             > service" under Cable Beach.  The RD is well named --- it provides
>             region
>             > services only, not the package of internal + external services
>             that together
>             > create a virtual world.
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >     >     Is OSgrid a virtual world?  Undoubtedly.  Is OSgrid
>             just a Region
>             >     Domain
>             >     >     (assuming it were implemented using VWRAP)?  No, of
>             course not, it
>             >     >     currently runs all the UGAIM services, which in a VWRAP
>             context would
>             >     >     become similar to those of Second Life.
>             >
>             >     Exact same argument.
>             >
>             >
>             > Exact same response because the same applies. :-)   What's more,
>             in OSgrid this
>             > is even easier to identify, because every person or company that
>             adds regions
>             > to OSgrid is subscribing to the notion that they are participants
>             in OSgrid ---
>             > OSgrid is their virtual world.  They are merely providing
>             additional land mass
>             > and simulation capacity.
>             >
>             > Also, in this example there is no need to hypothesize region
>             services being
>             > farmed out to third parties, as there already are hundreds to
>             thousands of
>             > independent third parties involved in supplying regions.  Those
>             regions and
>             > clusters of regions (equivalent to RDs) together combine to
>             create the virtual
>             > world of OSgrid.  There is a clear distinction between R/RDs here
>             and the VW
>             > itself, which also includes a variety of other services as
>             Charles has
>             > described several times.  The R/RDs are a very important part,
>             but functionally
>             > they are not the VW, nor are they the VW perceptually.  They are
>             places within
>             > the world, not the whole world.
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >     > So you see, the idea that has been floated which claims
>             that "VW == RD"
>             >     is
>             >     > completely wrong, and misrepresents what constitutes a
>             "virtual world"
>             >     despite
>             >     > the very clear examples before us.
>             >
>             >     If you want to put it that way (including everything above
>             that you said)
>             >     then
>             >     I have to side with Infinity: you cannot define a virtual
>             world that way
>             >     and
>             >     use it for useful discussions regarding VWRAP.
>             >
>             >
>             > I think you may have misread that.  I did not define "VW == RD".
>              That's the
>             > opposite of what I said, but I agree with you on the negative
>             conclusion.  If
>             > one defines "VW == RD" then it becomes impossible to have a
>             meaningful
>             > discussion about VWs in VWRAP.  It also becomes impossible to
>             have a meaningful
>             > discussion about VWs in VWRAP if one conjures up a fictitious
>             meaning of
>             > "virtual world" based on reachability.  And that's why we should
>             not define it
>             > in either of those two ways.
>             >
>             > The most useful and forward-looking way of defining virtual
>             worlds in VWRAP is
>             > as a collection of service endpoints, regardless of who operates
>             them.  All we
>             > should care about is the protocol between endpoints, and not
>             conjure up some
>             > non-existent single virtual world.
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >     In the end, one virtual world as defined by "all services
>             together to make
>             >     things work" will be, or can be, a mix of many RD's and many
>             AD's with a
>             >     complex
>             >     web of trust/non-trust between them that makes the concept of
>             "virtual
>             >     world"
>             >     rather fuzzy at best.
>             >
>             >
>             > You're right but you're not being clear about what is fuzzy.  The
>             concept of "
>             > single virtual world" is not only fuzzy, it is totally
>             non-existent in practice
>             > (because there are many, not one) as well as impossible in theory
>              because of
>             > balkanization through incompatible trust domains, as described so
>             magnificently
>             > by Magnus a week or two ago.  We should not go there.
>             >
>             > In contrast, the concept of multiple virtual worlds is crystal
>             clear.  Several
>             > people here in the group operate virtual worlds, but nobody would
>             suggest that
>             > they are unclear about what they operate.  We've been sold a
>             bridge on that
>             > "uncertainty".  Multiple virtual worlds presenting VWRAP
>             endpoints are the
>             > natural way of approaching interop between VWs, and you don't
>             have to define
>             > VWs structurally for that.  You only have to define the endpoints
>             that VWs need
>             > to present to the protocol, and avoid any notion of "single
>             virtual world".
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >     [...]
>             >     > As we move into analysis of the problem space, these issues
>             will be
>             >     > disentangled and clarified and the protocols will be
>             defined and evolve,
>             >     but
>             >     > from the current OGP perspective there is no symmetrical
>             relationship
>             >     possible
>             >     > between VWs that could be described as "peering".  It is
>             the asymmetry of
>             >     the
>             >     > VW-RD relationship that has been the crux of the "no VW
>             interop" issue.
>             >     For
>             >     > symmetrical peering, the protocol would need to mention at
>             least two
>             >     > communicating VWs.
>             >
>             >     You can about peering with just two RD's and one AD, or one
>             RD and two
>             >     AD's.
>             >
>             >
>             > I think you're confusing RDs with VWs again --- RDs only provide
>             regions,
>             > nothing else.  For peering between two VWs, you would need
>             interaction between
>             > their two ADs because their ADs provide their policies.  If you
>             bypass a VW's
>             > AD then you bypass its policies, so you're not interoping with
>             that world.  And
>             > I don't think we're encouraging bypassing and hence subverting a
>             world's
>             > policies.
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >     > Of course the situation could change as the protocol
>             evolves.  For
>             >     example,
>             >     > once or twice we have heard mention that multiple ADs could
>             be involved
>             >     in some
>             >     > way, and it seems certain that communication services from
>             multiple VWs
>             >     will be
>             >     > merged because residents demand this.  This would start to
>             take us into
>             >     VW-VW
>             >     > interop territory.  However, there is no such thing in
>             VWRAP currently,
>             >     and
>             >     > it's not in the list of deliverables to include it, and
>             therefore we
>             >     cannot say
>             >     > that VWRAP will provide VW-VW interop at all.  For now. ;-)
>             >
>             >     I can't comment on that cause I didn't see VWRAP yet, but
>             from the
>             >     charter and the comments on this list I'd think that full
>             support
>             >     for interop between any number of RD's and AD's is intended.
>             >
>             >
>             > Well you've put your finger on the problem here.  Everyone is
>             saying what they
>             > think is intended because the intention is not actually spelled
>             out in the
>             > documents.  Why cannot it be spelled out clearly that interop
>             between multiple
>             > ADs is intended?  If it were, this entire discussion could be
>             avoided because
>             > it's easy and reasonable to equate ADs with VWs in practice.
>             >
>             > Notice however that even if the protocol were modified to be able
>             to handle two
>             > ADs at a time, use of an unadorned "the virtual world" in the
>             documents would
>             > continue to raise the perennial question of "Which virtual world?
>             ".  After all,
>             > there would be two of them being discussed.
>             >
>             > It's this phraseology that stems from OGP's original goal of
>             adding single
>             > regions or RDs to an existing single virtual world (namely SL in
>             the prototype)
>             > that is creating such a problem.  That phraseology was
>             appropriate for that
>             > original goal.  It is not appropriate for the goal of
>             interoperating multiple
>             > virtual worlds --- it makes it impossible to even talk about the
>             goal sensibly,
>             > because "the virtual world" in the OGP sense has no plural.
>             >
>             > It's unfortunate, but this whole affair is just the product of
>             legacy wording
>             > from OGP.  That's never going to work in a multi-world setting
>             where we need to
>             > talk about the endpoints in different worlds.
>             >
>             >
>             > Morgaine.
>             >
>             > PS. If anyone else read this far other than Carlo, you have a lot
>             of stamina
>             > and dedication. ;-)
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             >
>             > ==============================================
>             >
>             > On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>
>             wrote:
>             >
>             >     On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 04:28:03AM +0100, Morgaine wrote:
>             >     > The problem you see is that a virtual world is much more
>             than just a
>             >     Region
>             >     > Domain.  It is a complete set of services of which the
>             Region Domain
>             >     service is
>             >     > just one.  Other typical services might be those of the
>             Agent Domain
>             >     (which
>             >     > provides identification and authorization services and
>             possibly others),
>             >     as
>             >     > well as asset and inventory services, IM and other
>             communication
>             >     services, and
>             >     > maybe several more.
>             >
>             >     Well... that is purely semantic. It is a way to define VW,
>             but not one that
>             >     I've been using :/
>             >
>             >     For simplicity, assume that only two things are needed to
>             create a complete
>             >     virtual world, like SL or OG: A Region Domain (RD) and an
>             Agent Domain
>             >     (AD).
>             >
>             >     Currently, without any interop, each administrative entity
>             (or trust
>             >     entity)
>             >     will need to provide both: an RD *and* an AD, otherwise they
>             don't have a
>             >     functional VW.
>             >
>             >     Your conclusion is that a VW exist of both 1 RD and 1 AD. But
>             I ask you to
>             >     reconsider if that conclusion is correct, because it is based
>             on the
>             >     current
>             >     situation without any interop. Now "correct" might not be the
>             correct word
>             >     - heh.
>             >     Rather I should say: I ask you to reconsider if that
>             definition is very
>             >     useful.
>             >
>             >     Lets consider the following fictive case:
>             >
>             >     LL runs one RD and AD, called RD1 and AD1.
>             >     CB (Cable Beach) runs another RD and AD, called RD2 and AD2.
>             >     A user that authenticates with either AD1 or AD2 can travel
>             to RD1 AND RD2,
>             >     completely symmetrical, keeping their respective AD1- and
>             AD2- assets etc.
>             >     This is possible with the right policies, so for the sake of
>             looking at
>             >     the usefulness of the above definition of VW, assume this is
>             the case.
>             >
>             >     Would you consider "RD1 + AD1" one VW, and "RD2 + AD2" to be
>             another VW?
>             >     Or do you think it would make most sense in THIS case to
>             speak of a single
>             >     VW?
>             >
>             >     I think this is what Infinity means when she says that
>             "virtual world"
>             >     cannot
>             >     be defined, because what could be perceived as being a VW is
>             highly
>             >     dependend
>             >     on the exact situation (and policies) and in certain
>             configuration that are
>             >     not as clear as the current situation (no interop) or the
>             above example
>             >     (100%
>             >     interop).
>             >
>             >     In one of my first posts about this topic I stated that
>             "virtual world"
>             >     should
>             >     be considered to be the Region Domain (although I didn't use
>             that term at
>             >     the
>             >     moment) and be completely independent of the Agent Domain,
>             based on typical
>             >     cases of abuse and griefing etc: if anyone annoys some other
>             user, or
>             >     breaks
>             >     almost any ToS, it will be region based; which is why I've
>             always said that
>             >     any type of abuse can and should be handled at the sim
>             (single region)
>             >     level:
>             >     the estate owner and managers in SL, even, but that idea
>             definitely extends
>             >     to "world administrations": the people running the REGION
>             (domain) is the
>             >     one
>             >     that should decide what is the local ToS and deal with abuse
>             etc. That is
>             >     why I strongly argue to define "virtual world" as Region
>             Domain, and leave
>             >     the AD out of it. Nevertheless, now I have the term "Region
>             Domain" I don't
>             >     need "virtual world" anymore.
>             >
>             >     > In our new protocol, these services may either be
>             implemented internally
>             >     within
>             >     > a virtual world, or some might be implemented as external
>             services
>             >     offered by
>             >     > third parties, the choice being a policy and design
>             decision for each
>             >     world
>             >     > operator.  In all cases however, the virtual worlds are
>             defined by a set
>             >     of
>             >     > services, and not just by a Region Domain.
>             >
>             >     I'm afraid that is purely a matter of opinion. I agree that
>             it is likely
>             >     that a single 'administrative entity' that runs a RD will
>             also run an AD
>             >     and allow users authenticated with their AD visit their RD,
>             but it is no
>             >     more than *likely*. There will almost certainly be service
>             provides that
>             >     ONLY run an AD, and don't have a RD! And I can imagine that
>             there will
>             >     be some that only run a RD and do not care about running
>             their own AD.
>             >
>             >     Therefore, "virtual world" cannot be synonym for "the set of
>             services
>             >     run by a single administrative entity" as you seem to argue,
>             and at
>             >     the SAME time be argued to include an RD *and* AD at all
>             times.
>             >
>             >     > This is easy to see by looking at a couple of archetypal
>             examples in this
>             >     > space:
>             >     >
>             >     >
>             >     >     Is Second Life a virtual world?  Undoubtedly.  Is
>             Second Life just a
>             >     Region
>             >     >     Domain (assuming it were implemented using VWRAP)?  No,
>             of course
>             >     not, SL
>             >     >     includes all of the services mentioned above, and
>             others.
>             >
>             >     Of course, LL happens to run all services that are needed to
>             create one
>             >     virtual world; there are no third parties they can hire from
>             yet, so they
>             >     have to provide it all themselves.
>             >
>             >     But after SL implemented VWRAP they might decide to do away
>             from one of
>             >     their services and only keep their RD. Unlikely, but
>             possible.
>             >
>             >     >     Is OSgrid a virtual world?  Undoubtedly.  Is OSgrid
>             just a Region
>             >     Domain
>             >     >     (assuming it were implemented using VWRAP)?  No, of
>             course not, it
>             >     >     currently runs all the UGAIM services, which in a VWRAP
>             context would
>             >     >     become similar to those of Second Life.
>             >
>             >     Exact same argument.
>             >
>             >     > So you see, the idea that has been floated which claims
>             that "VW == RD"
>             >     is
>             >     > completely wrong, and misrepresents what constitutes a
>             "virtual world"
>             >     despite
>             >     > the very clear examples before us.
>             >
>             >     If you want to put it that way (including everything above
>             that you said)
>             >     then
>             >     I have to side with Infinity: you cannot define a virtual
>             world that way
>             >     and
>             >     use it for useful discussions regarding VWRAP.
>             >
>             >     In the end, one virtual world as defined by "all services
>             together to make
>             >     things work" will be, or can be, a mix of many RD's and many
>             AD's with a
>             >     complex
>             >     web of trust/non-trust between them that makes the concept of
>             "virtual
>             >     world"
>             >     rather fuzzy at best.
>             >
>             >     [...]
>             >     > As we move into analysis of the problem space, these issues
>             will be
>             >     > disentangled and clarified and the protocols will be
>             defined and evolve,
>             >     but
>             >     > from the current OGP perspective there is no symmetrical
>             relationship
>             >     possible
>             >     > between VWs that could be described as "peering".  It is
>             the asymmetry of
>             >     the
>             >     > VW-RD relationship that has been the crux of the "no VW
>             interop" issue.
>             >     For
>             >     > symmetrical peering, the protocol would need to mention at
>             least two
>             >     > communicating VWs.
>             >
>             >     You can about peering with just two RD's and one AD, or one
>             RD and two
>             >     AD's.
>             >
>             >     > Of course the situation could change as the protocol
>             evolves.  For
>             >     example,
>             >     > once or twice we have heard mention that multiple ADs could
>             be involved
>             >     in some
>             >     > way, and it seems certain that communication services from
>             multiple VWs
>             >     will be
>             >     > merged because residents demand this.  This would start to
>             take us into
>             >     VW-VW
>             >     > interop territory.  However, there is no such thing in
>             VWRAP currently,
>             >     and
>             >     > it's not in the list of deliverables to include it, and
>             therefore we
>             >     cannot say
>             >     > that VWRAP will provide VW-VW interop at all.  For now. ;-)
>             >
>             >     I can't comment on that cause I didn't see VWRAP yet, but
>             from the
>             >     charter and the comments on this list I'd think that full
>             support
>             >     for interop between any number of RD's and AD's is intended.
>             >
>             >     --
>             >     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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     ogpx mailing list
>     [e-mail]
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
> 
> 
> 

> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx


-- 
Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>