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

Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> Mon, 05 October 2009 22:29 UTC

Return-Path: <carlo@alinoe.com>
X-Original-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ogpx@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C54CF28C24C for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 15:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.194
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.194 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.236, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mokiedV4nzsC for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 15:29:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from viefep15-int.chello.at (viefep15-int.chello.at [62.179.121.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D2413A686E for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 15:29:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from edge02.upc.biz ([192.168.13.237]) by viefep15-int.chello.at (InterMail vM.7.09.01.00 201-2219-108-20080618) with ESMTP id <20091005223130.XXHB17988.viefep15-int.chello.at@edge02.upc.biz>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 00:31:30 +0200
Received: from mail9.alinoe.com ([77.250.43.12]) by edge02.upc.biz with edge id pAXS1c06p0FlQed02AXTMl; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:31:30 +0200
X-SourceIP: 77.250.43.12
Received: from carlo by mail9.alinoe.com with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <carlo@alinoe.com>) id 1Muw6k-0000AS-3S; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:32:42 +0200
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:32:42 +0200
From: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
To: Infinity Linden <infinity@lindenlab.com>
Message-ID: <20091005223242.GA32650@alinoe.com>
References: <20090914084420.GA25580@alinoe.com> <9b8a8de40909291316i19c79a96h111d88e73a64cc79@mail.gmail.com> <e0b04bba0909291751g157d2043g1c15e8d8ac417ccf@mail.gmail.com> <f72742de0909300910t23131532i1719d2c86423fa41@mail.gmail.com> <e0b04bba0910011434i13f890bfodd22cd15eef17697@mail.gmail.com> <f72742de0910011457o5e757135rd9db7fc7f4a1389@mail.gmail.com> <OFBDE64925.B257B8B0-ON85257642.007957C9-85257642.007B2CA5@us.ibm.com> <20091002012335.GB690@alinoe.com> <20091005182505.GA20468@alinoe.com> <3a880e2c0910051131k2d81531au275782c6cb3c3655@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <3a880e2c0910051131k2d81531au275782c6cb3c3655@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Cc: ogpx@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ogpx] VWRAP Draft Charter - 2009 09 01
X-BeenThere: ogpx@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual Worlds and the Open Grid Protocol <ogpx.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ogpx>
List-Post: <mailto:ogpx@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx>, <mailto:ogpx-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:29:57 -0000

***************************************************************
* 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 <carlo@alinoe.com>