IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ogpx] Protocol for permitting policy decisions

Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> Wed, 07 October 2009 20:32 UTC

Return-Path: <carlo@alinoe.com>
X-Original-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D59F73A69A5 for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 13:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.232, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fkg8MdblPZ-G for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 13:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from viefep12-int.chello.at (viefep12-int.chello.at [62.179.121.32]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9878B3A67FB for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 13:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from edge02.upc.biz ([192.168.13.237]) by viefep12-int.chello.at (InterMail vM.7.09.01.00 201-2219-108-20080618) with ESMTP id <20091007203416.BVDO4394.viefep12-int.chello.at@edge02.upc.biz>; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 22:34:16 +0200
Received: from mail9.alinoe.com ([77.250.43.12]) by edge02.upc.biz with edge id pwaD1c06u0FlQed02waEnq; Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:34:16 +0200
X-SourceIP: 77.250.43.12
Received: from carlo by mail9.alinoe.com with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <carlo@alinoe.com>) id 1MvdEV-0002GJ-8Q; Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:35:35 +0200
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 22:35:35 +0200
From: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
To: Infinity Linden <infinity@lindenlab.com>
Message-ID: <20091007203535.GA13882@alinoe.com>
References: <983F17705339E24699AA251B458249B50CC48CAEBF@EXCHANGE2K7.office.nic.se> <3a880e2c0910051239t3dcae895x4f6d5f4bf5d64cd@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3a880e2c0910051239t3dcae895x4f6d5f4bf5d64cd@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Cc: "ogpx@ietf.org" <ogpx@ietf.org>, Magnus Zeisig <magnus.zeisig@iis.se>
Subject: Re: [ogpx] Protocol for permitting policy decisions
X-BeenThere: ogpx@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual Worlds and the Open Grid Protocol <ogpx.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ogpx>
List-Post: <mailto:ogpx@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:32:40 -0000

On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 12:39:32PM -0700, Infinity Linden wrote:
> option 3: multi-message handshake
> 
> AD --------------- (name) -------------> RD
> AD <-------- (X, age > X? cap) --------- RD
> 
> AD ------------------------------------> RD (age > X? cap)
> AD <------------ (rez cap) ------------- RD

Note, again, the need for a flexible protocol negotiation:
we can't know, already, what all will be needed.

Nevertheless, the more flexibility the better imho.
I'd prefer to see this:

AD ------(name, <list with keywords>) -----------> RD
AD <-----(name, <list with keywords + ranges>) --- RD
AD ------(name, yes/no)--------------------------> RD
AD <-----(rez cap) ------------------------------- RD

Where VWRAP will not define what keywords are possible.

However, implementers might, for example, choose to use 'AGE' as keyword
with an integer range, leading to a msg exchange like

AD ------(name, (AGE)) -----------> RD
AD <-----(name, (AGE, 21)) -------- RD
AD ------(name, yes)--------------> RD
AD <-----(rez cap) ---------------- RD

or some might implement

AD ------(name, (AGE, LIKES_BUNNIES)) -----------> RD
AD <-----(name, (AGE, 13), YES) ------------------ RD
AD ------(name, yes, yes)------------------------> RD
AD <-----(rez cap) ------------------------------- RD

For privacy reasons, I think it would suffice to
just send the AND of all 'yes's, thus:

AD ------(name, (AGE, LIKES_BUNNIES)) -----------> RD
AD <-----(name, (AGE, 13), YES) ------------------ RD
AD ------(name, yes)-----------------------------> RD
AD <-----(rez cap) ------------------------------- RD

or,

AD ------(name, (AGE, LIKES_BUNNIES)) -----------> RD
AD <-----(name, (AGE, 13), DONTCARE) ------------- RD
AD ------(name, yes)-----------------------------> RD
AD <-----(rez cap) ------------------------------- RD

Again, neither 'AGE' nor 'LIKES_BUNNIES', would be defined by us,
but we would define how to handle integer ranges, booleans,
don't cares, string literals, and perhaps regular expressions.

-- 
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email