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

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Infinity Linden <[e-mail]>wrote:

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


That has already been addressed in numerous places.  DDP does not imply that
*only* "destination determines policy" exclusively in the way you suggest at
all.

You may have missed this post the first time around, but it was written
specifically to help you understand DDP ---
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ogpx/current/msg00450.html  .

You may also wish to examine Joshua's post here ---
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ogpx/current/msg00447.html  , in which
we were discussing the implications of tourism enabled by DDP on the
services provided by ADs and RDs.  Good progress was made by understanding
this basic principle for tourists interacting in a non-local RD.


Morgaine.







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

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Infinity Linden <[e-mail]>wrote:

> 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]>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>