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

[Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>]

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]>