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

SM <sm@resistor.net> Mon, 05 October 2009 09:20 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
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 873C428C142 for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 02:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.477
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.477 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.122, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 3e1dlWcBdbkQ for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 02:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns1.qubic.net (ns1.qubic.net [208.69.177.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C933F3A6918 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 02:20:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from subman.resistor.net ([10.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by ns1.qubic.net (8.14.4.Beta0/8.14.4.Beta0) with ESMTP id n959M0ed022695 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 02:22:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1254734528; x=1254820928; bh=q06S8dorD3g5wJLJwipbe/WbiLcBNSXziDslgo+Ri38=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=h1ESgAUB4hCMKc6tfEkEVKBEzCXCwmpIBdxcA7KTMIe8IIgKZt2lKhiUGozgb0xYU Sn/hbcxf08LnGUrSxPDKGIBVfw1l7ojJeJu7sdm7P4pQWH79fExtrnWxnTVFXst7t9 9B7MhIStAFp3aoPcTqUWkSyb0vKH8NRLKTGMxDt0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=resistor.net; c=simple; q=dns; b=1y+52EV8Qvn1g35EqwhGnhr9M97UVBFzJVa7zre3iBRjW/Votc0IxHJzUiuxHApJz YqK2v1GNPNJ4/1UfBUzidOQ5vfgfJa0ECyPFDzR1oj6iDO7wEJskmFZq2hNafn3rREN cBj/OoA2p0RJE6dbFXmwJ67k0yq6nWpbNctssWk=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20091005015852.03101298@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 02:21:41 -0700
To: ogpx@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <4646639E08F58B42836FAC24C94624DD771A0D827E@GVW0433EXB.amer icas.hpqcorp.net>
References: <e0b04bba0909291751g157d2043g1c15e8d8ac417ccf@mail.gmail.com> <e0b04bba0910011613w6f25b684w1b0f2e8c7187b3de@mail.gmail.com> <f72742de0910011632n3488ff6aqbf93edbda2a51637@mail.gmail.com> <e0b04bba0910012252v540dd170k4b81e30052e6c974@mail.gmail.com> <3a880e2c0910020932t5995c477qb0d798de1c2653f6@mail.gmail.com> <20091003192159.GA7474@alinoe.com> <e0b04bba0910031452o2a497effi57c4e92f8902b5df@mail.gmail.com> <20091003222118.GA16290@alinoe.com> <e0b04bba0910031633k2127d996v5ef5d3f356623a69@mail.gmail.com> <4646639E08F58B42836FAC24C94624DD771A0D8236@GVW0433EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net> <9b8a8de40910040421y41314922o4c5242c77941af4c@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20091004072856.031ac940@resistor.net> <4646639E08F58B42836FAC24C94624DD771A0D827E@GVW0433EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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 09:20:37 -0000

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