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

[Infinity Linden <[e-mail]>]

i agree that identifying information should not be included in the
protocol, but for use cases where such information is required for
proper operation (i.e. - the adult verification example) we should not
eliminate it as a possibility.

i would recommend making it not be a required part of the protocol,
but identify where in the protocol flows such information SHOULD be
included if that option is to be used by collaborating AD's and RD's.
one of the reasons LLSD was designed was for situations like this; it
is quite possible for agent domains that do not want to reveal
sensitive information (like the account holders age or whether they
are considered an "adult" for the purposes of accessing adult content)
then they do not have to include those bits of information in the
protocol flow. these agent domains may find, howerver, that some
region operators will refuse to allow them to place avatars in their
regions. this is a POLICY issue that should be left entirely up to the
AD and RD.

morgaine, if the {agent|region} domain code you write wants to connect
potentially underage account holders with adult content, that's
entirely your call. however, there are a number of us here who operate
in an environment in which these concerns are very real.

also. i'm sure the people who have been sending email to you on this
topic are perfectly capable of participating in the conversation here.

-cheers
-meadhbh

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 3:20 AM, Morgaine <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Judging by personal mails received on this topic, I sense that sanity is
> prevailing, and that there is no desire nor intention to make trigger
> concepts such as age, sex, race, religion, creed, DNA genome or any other
> sensitive and/or personal information part of the protocol.
>
> It would be the thin end of the wedge, and I'm hoping that people are clever
> enough not to go there.
>
> Services are authenticated.  Let that be enough.
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
>
>
> ===================================
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:21 AM, SM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> At 09:18 04-10-2009, Dickson, Mike (ISS Software) wrote:
>>>
>>> Sure it does if I'm required to authenticate to use it.  That is, if I'm
>>> sending using my gmail.com address and I'm required to authenticate to use
>>> it then yes, its very possible
>>> to make the association.  True, I may be able to find an SMTP server that
>>> will accept my
>>
>> That's mail submission.  I'll skip the discussion about the analogy.
>>
>> At 11:46 04-10-2009, Vaughn Deluca wrote:
>>>
>>> But the discussion is drifting,  were talking about the way that for
>>> instance an age limit might be passed in the protocol.  Carlo said that info
>>> was needed, Morgaine set it
>>>  has no place in the protocol, using SMTP as an example, Mike stated that
>>> it is very well
>>
>> The discussion seems to be about acquiring policy information to authorize
>> access to a resource and whether that should be part of the protocol.  It
>> could be age, location or other non-technical information.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -sm
>> _______________________________________________
>> ogpx mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>