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

Joshua Bell <josh@lindenlab.com> Thu, 01 October 2009 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <josh@lindenlab.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 4D6073A69C4 for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 09:43:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.604
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.604 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.372, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 Z-dQJeqlvUdp for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 09:43:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f192.google.com (mail-yx0-f192.google.com [209.85.210.192]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6770A3A6AA0 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Oct 2009 09:43:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yxe30 with SMTP id 30so406667yxe.29 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:44:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.101.109.11 with SMTP id l11mr1261512anm.145.1254415489195; Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:44:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20091001160625.GA13702@alinoe.com>
References: <e0b04bba0909022028g68227199t86212294fe6faefc@mail.gmail.com> <e0b04bba0909132243r10730a3fq275f8143087807c6@mail.gmail.com> <20090914084420.GA25580@alinoe.com> <9b8a8de40909291316i19c79a96h111d88e73a64cc79@mail.gmail.com> <e0b04bba0909291751g157d2043g1c15e8d8ac417ccf@mail.gmail.com> <f72742de0909300910t23131532i1719d2c86423fa41@mail.gmail.com> <20091001105527.GA29450@alinoe.com> <9b8a8de40910010456m68690c17u42c121e8b0cc64e3@mail.gmail.com> <9b8a8de40910010516x12dcf7e3x659b38e7708030c9@mail.gmail.com> <20091001160625.GA13702@alinoe.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:44:48 -0700
Message-ID: <f72742de0910010944s74e43a88q618e77e87f121b21@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joshua Bell <josh@lindenlab.com>
To: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001636ed741ba25fe10474e25d4a"
Cc: ogpx@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ogpx] Fwd: VWRAP Draft Charter - 2009 09 01
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: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:43:34 -0000

Ah, I believe your point is clear now - there are policies that can be
enforced at a protocol level, and policies that cannot. Thanks for bringing
that up; it will be important to note so we don't make blanket statements.

I would point out that this occurs on both the agent side and region side,
just like access control; your agent domain may have a policy which states
"no kissing anyone with cooties"; the region domain you visit may allow such
hi-jinks, but the user would be violating the agent domain's policy by doing
so. This is also, presumably, unenforceable by protocol.

(One could imagine an extensible mechanism for machine-readable policy that
could be enforced by the domains, but us creative humans can always think of
examples that can't be encoded.)

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 02:16:42PM +0200, Vaughn Deluca wrote:
> > Its not clear to me what you mean Carlo. How does
> > "the RD making protocol-level policy decisions" differ from
> > "It is the destination (the region (domain) that the user is in) that
> > determines the ToS."
> >
> > Asume the RD is mature, and therefore states in its terms of service that
> any
> > agent present should be above 18.
> > An agent domain without age verification will be happy to TP its agents
> to that
> > RD
> > The RD will want to inform the AD its not going to happen.  In this
> example I
> > fail to see the destinction you mention above.
>
> Access restriction again...
>
> Take for example: some region demands that everyone is an alien of
> some sorts. Nobody can be rejected based on the AD they use, and no
> AD will refuse to teleport to the region either.
>
> Once there, the users must use an alien avatar. If they do not,
> then they break a local (region) rule and the administration of
> the region will want to warn/ban them. This is nothing to do
> with AD's, nor can VWRAP detect and enforce what avie you use.
>
> --
> Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> ogpx@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>