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

[Infinity Linden <[e-mail]>]

we will not be able to reach consensus with a protocol that supports
"destination determines policy" exclusively.

if we want to add that as an option, i'm down with that, but i cannot
imagine my employer signing onto a proposal that would disallow the
agent domain from enforcing it's policies as well as the region
domain's policies.

but the great thing about policies is they're outside of the protocol
definition. so... i'm hip to adding the "tourist model" as a supported
use case if this will allow us to get on with more important matters.

i would suggest we not add the "allowed to wear clothes" bits to the
protocol, but leave this as a POLICY for the deployers. personally, i
have NO PROBLEM with an agent domain and a region domain making
asymmetric agreements. that is, if region domain X wants to make
policy A with agent domain Y, but wants to make a different policy
(call it policy B) with agent domain Z, well good on 'em. i guess i'm
too much of libertarian at heart to have a protocol demand that each
participant or pair of participants use exactly the same protocol.

-cheers
-meadhbh

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Carlo Wood <[e-mail]> wrote:
> ***************************************************************
> * Hence, it is possible to apply the simplication:            *
> *- AD policies ONLY come into play at the moment of teleport  *
> *  (allow or not).                                            *
> *- Once arrived in a new region, the policies of the AD can   *
> *  be 'forgotten' and only the policies of the RD apply.      *
> *  If the AD doesn't want that, they shouldn't allow the TP.  *
> ***************************************************************
>
> The rationale behind this is that this is the only reasonable
> way to achieve that for any two people in a given region, the
> same rules apply.
>
> Hopefully we can reach consensus on that it would be unworkable
> if one person is allowed to X, while the person next to him/her
> is not, where X being anything and everything.
>
> Example, one person is allowed to use avatar Foo without clothes,
> then everyone in the region should be allowed to use avatar Foo
> without clothes (not taking into account local rules set by
> sim owner or parcel owner).
>
> Since two different people can be using two different AD's,
> no AD can force a limitation upon a user (beyond what the
> region already demands) because another AD might not enforce
> that leading to different rules for different people in the
> same region.
>
> It's really quite logical, almost trivial, but seeing previous
> confusion about things on this list it would be nice to see
> people agree. Thanks!
>
> --
> Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>
>