Re: [ogpx] Protocol for permitting policy decisions

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Joshua Bell <[e-mail]> wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Morgaine <[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:
Are we trying to create an interop protocol here, or a protocol for
preventing interop?

>

> :) Honestly, I was trying to riff on the thread (AD and RD sharing
> information about agents to make policy decisions), rather than propose
> anything. I think an attempt to define a global set of characteristics about
> users that enable all policy decisions is hopeless - cultures, laws, and
> individuals are too varied and rich. That leaves pair-wise negotiation
> and/or trust networks, which IMHO needs to happen *if* there are to be
> service-level distinctions for most cases anyway.
>


Don't worry, I was slightly chuckling as I wrote that --- it was more
despondancy than objection. ;-)   I do of course fully agree that everyone
should be able to choose whatever policy they want.  The only thing that
worries me is that we are spending an inordinate amount of time examining
how to deny interop, and almost no time on how to achieve it.

I hope that this is a passing phase, and that we're about to embark on
detailed discussion about how avatars, assets, objects and everything else
actually move between regions spread across many worlds, as this is the end
goal.  Blocking interop has already been achieved *perfectly*, by not having
the worlds connected.  It's time to look at the opposite. :-)


Morgaine.




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

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:45 PM, Joshua Bell <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Morgaine <[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:
>
>>
>> That's a great description of the ultimate interop dystopia in which,
>> through definition of arbitrary set membership criteria by an arbitrary
>> number of policy makers, the result of transitive policy transference and
>> policy intersection is that the set of visitable worlds is the empty set.
>>
>> Are we trying to create an interop protocol here, or a protocol for
>> preventing interop?
>>
>
> :) Honestly, I was trying to riff on the thread (AD and RD sharing
> information about agents to make policy decisions), rather than propose
> anything. I think an attempt to define a global set of characteristics about
> users that enable all policy decisions is hopeless - cultures, laws, and
> individuals are too varied and rich. That leaves pair-wise negotiation
> and/or trust networks, which IMHO needs to happen *if* there are to be
> service-level distinctions for most cases anyway.
>
> What I forgot to say is: on the Web, as you move between sites you accept
> various terms of service. Attempts to have your browser automatically
> negotiate with sites over content have been extremely limited - things like
> the defunct PICS (you tell your browser to allow a third party site to rate
> the site you intend to visit), or Google's features which block
> malware/phishing sites (and I believe are used by current browsers as well
> when you just type a URL). Your user-agent (Web browser) does *not* have a
> built-in lawyer that agrees to a TOS on your behalf, however. (I'm having
> flashbacks of "Diamond Age" here - is that the right novel?)
>
> In the VWRAP space, I don't believe your VW agent domain will be capable of
> doing that in a totally generalized, automated way either... so either it
> will have some a priori knowledge of the RD via some manner (pair-wise
> negotiation, trust network, etc), defer to the user to accept the TOS, or
> simply block access.
>
> In other words: "Just like the web, except where it's different" once
> again.
>
> I'm leaning ever more strongly towards David's position that only services
>> should carry expressions of policy, not domains, because in the direction in
>> which this discussion is heading there will be no widespread interop at all.
>>
>
> I need to re-read Meadhbh's drafts to internalize the formal terminology
> (yeah, my bad), but in my head a "domain" is a deployment model for a set of
> conceptually related services, but it's the service end-points that exist at
> the protocol level. We talk about domains as clusters of conceptually
> related services as a crutch so we don't have to enumerate the specific
> services in each conversation.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>