Re: [ogpx] OGPX WG draft charter, 2009-08-19 revision

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

Carlo has expressed the issue perfectly in his post.

This isn't merely about a choice of words, it's a matter of actual
functionality.  Given two SL-compatible virtual worlds each comprising
multiple regions, either OGP provides a mechanism for teleporting from a
region in the first world to a region in the second world, or it doesn't.

Many things go along with cross-world teleports of course.  Cross-world
landmarks is one issue, continuity of inventory while in compatible worlds
is another, and so on.

While the details are of course complex to work out, at the heart of it is a
very simple question about goals, and it deserves a clear answer.  Will OGP
provide interop between SL-compatible virtual worlds, or is that not
intended OGP functionality?

 We need to know what is in scope for OGPX, because that scope determines
our discussions, our implementations, our deliverables and our timelines.

Morgaine.








On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Carlo Wood <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I'm feeling a bit dizzy of all the terminology :p
> And, I'm still not sure if I understand it: it's still unclear.
>
> Perhaps we'll just have to use hard examples on this mailinglist
> first to make things clear, and only then we can think about
> ways to achieve the same clearness in more abstract terms.
>
> ---
>
> 1) Right now, there is 'Second Life', and there are several
>   opensim worlds that are very very like Second Life. Never I
>   am refering to or even thinking about WoW.
>
> 2) Right now, therefore, we can call those entirely separated
>   administrative domains, different "worlds", as has been
>   done in the past several years.
>
>   We might want to change that terminology, but let me use
>   "world" to refer the currently existing different worlds,
>   where "Second Life" is one of them and -say- "opengrid X" is
>   another.
>
> 3) These worlds are separated in EVERY way:
>   - You cannot teleport bewteen them.
>   - There is no notion of Landmarks that refer outside a given world.
>   - You cannot send IM's to avatars in the other world.
>   - You cannot access any asset (or inventory) of another world.
>
> 4) I thought that the OGPX effort had as goal to change this
>   *complete* separation.
>
> However, if we want to make these limitations vanish then they
> cannot be used to DEFINE what (separate) world mean... Hence,
> the term becomes undefined and unclear (in the future).
>
> But-- there are things that define the "worlds" that do NOT
> want to change:
>
> * The administration is entirely different:
>  - A TOS only applies to one world.
>  - An Abuse Report only has effect within one virtual world.
>  - A ban by such an administration only affects their own world.
>
> I think that most ideal situation would be when it is entirely
> and only the user that decides if they want to visit another world,
> completely independent of which world that is (as they can now
> by simply logging out, and logging in elsewhere).
>
> This CAN be supported; but it would mean to both region domain
> AND agent domain (in order to switch completely between administrations
> etc).
>
> Of course, viewers could simply support a seemless logout and login
> elsewhere, but we (the users) want support for this in the format
> of LandMarks, so that it is relatively easy to invite someone to
> that other place, in another world.
>
> Trivially, however, two major annoyances arrise with such a simple sheme:
>
> * The need to create a new account (avatar name / password)
> * Complete loss of access to inventory:
>  - loss of shape, skin, clothes and attachments during teleport
>  - loss of everything else in the inventory
>
> If I'm correct then the latter has everything to do with the
> agent domain; thus, if someone would stay in the same agent domain
> (ie, one run by Linden Lab), then one would not need to create a
> new account, would not need to logout and re-login, would not
> lose appearance or inventory.
>
> The question remains now:
>
> how will that affect the ideal solution? Because to the user those
> worlds will suddenly appear to be a single world.
>
> What if a griefer logins in with LL, teleports to opengrid X and
> halts a sim there by running 10,000 scripts in attachments.
>
> Whose TOS determines if that is allowed? I'd say opengrid X's tos.
> And if opengrid X's TOS does not allow halting a sim, then where does
> an Abuse Report go to? I'd say... still to opengrid X's administration.
> And when they decide to ban this person, will it be possible to
> ban that (LL) account from opengrid X?
>
> These questions are not trivial, but of utmost importance (yes,
> also for the protocol): any and all administrative issues should
> be a case of the administration of the *region* one is in, and
> never of the agent domain someone belongs to.
>
> As a result, an agent domain shouldn't care less where someone
> wants to go, because they are never responsible, and therefore
> it should NOT be a matter of policy where someone can or cannot
> teleport while keeping their inventory: it should simply be
> possible, because the address is given in the LandMark.
>
> --
> Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>