Re: [ogpx] Tourist use case

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Lawson English <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Since the test required no agreements of any kind, but merely announcing
> the relative position of the sim on the grid to avoid technical issues with
> overlapping coordinates, I'm not sure how you can say that it was NOT a
> free-for-all. With no room for policy implementation, there's no policy
> period.
>


Policy was established by the AD controlling the authentication and being
the only source of seed caps.  No interop was possible *except* that allowed
by the AD.  That's a "free-for-all" where only one side has any say, which
is quite the opposite of the usual meaning of "free-for-all". :-)


>
> I would HOPE that any tourism mode that is implemented in the future by
> some provider for interop between two or more separate services will provide
> *more* than a default avatar with no asset sharing, no policy agreements,
> no appearance sharing, no nuttin'. Are you implying that we will see LESS
> features in a future service from someone or another? How low can we go?
> Tourism mode is, in my mind, the lowest common denominator of services that
> a minimal VWAP protocol will support.



That's confusing the word "more" as meaning "implementing services that were
missing in the OGP trial" with the word "more" as meaning "allowing the RD
to determine its own region policy".  The first is a given.  The second was
not in the OGP design at all.

With the old OGP model in which the only source of seed caps was the AD, it
would have changed nothing if the RD had provided additional services,
because the agent would have had no access to them.  The AD's policy control
was *total*.  As such, no foreign tourism would have been possible at all,
only travel within one's own world of regions authenticated by the same AD.
This is because the regions in the intersection between N such AD-controlled
worlds is the empty set, except under nil trust.

That was very different to the inter-world tourism that we've been talking
about here for several weeks now, in which RDs are in effect sections of
autonomous worlds each with their own region policies determined by their
own asset services and other services which they proxy from their own AD.


>
> Well, no policy agreement, no money, no assets, no individual appearance,
> etc., seems like a pretty low bar to shoot for. I hope that the most minimal
> VWRAP definition will include at least as much as the original OGP test
> provided.
>


I think that we're aiming for a bit more than that. ;-)


Morgaine.







=======================================

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Lawson English <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Morgaine wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Lawson English <[e-mail]<mailtomailto:
>> [e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>    It seems to me that the MOST touristy mode we will ever see is the
>>    free-for-all from the original OGP test where simple TP and naught
>>    else was supported.
>>
>>
>>
>> There was no "free-for-all" interop in the original OGP test:  there was
>> merely TP from an SL grid to several separately-administered sims, with no
>> framework in place for such sims to express their independent policies, nor
>> any design for such a framework.  This was unable to support a tourism model
>> at all since that requires DDP otherwise travellers from multiple worlds
>> having distinct policies can't meet up in a common tourist resort.  It was
>> very far indeed from a free-for-all.  In fact it was much more like a plan
>> for region assimilation by an advancing empire. ;-)  All it could ever do is
>> build walled gardens.
>>
>
>
> Since the test required no agreements of any kind, but merely announcing
> the relative position of the sim on the grid to avoid technical issues with
> overlapping coordinates, I'm not sure how you can say that it was NOT a
> free-for-all. With no room for policy implementation, there's no policy
> period.
>
>>
>> Your comment also needs to be examined in another light.  "The MOST
>> touristy mode we will ever see" /*from whom*/?  Your words seem to
>> presuppose that only the deployments by the current majority provider are
>> relevant.
>>
>
> I would HOPE that any tourism mode that is implemented in the future by
> some provider for interop between two or more separate services will provide
> more than a default avatar with no asset sharing, no policy agreements, no
> appearance sharing, no nuttin'. Are you implying that we will see LESS
> features in a future service from someone or another? How low can we go?
> Tourism mode is, in my mind, the lowest common denominator of services that
> a minimal VWAP protocol will support.
>
>
>> It's important not to confuse what an individual world provider such as LL
>> will do, and what the whole set of deployers of the protocol will do.  If we
>> are successful in specifying VWRAP services flexibly as envisaged by David,
>> we can expect all the possible deployment patterns to be exercised to
>> different degrees across the breadth of the Internet by many different
>> providers and many individuals.
>>
>
> Well, no policy agreement, no money, no assets, no individual appearance,
> etc., seems like a pretty low bar to shoot for. I hope that the most minimal
> VWRAP definition will include at least as much as the original OGP test
> provided.
>
>
>
>
> Lawson (Saijanai ISL)
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>