Re: [ogpx] Protocol for permitting policy decisions

"Dickson, Mike (ISS Software)" <mike.dickson@hp.com> Thu, 08 October 2009 01:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mike.dickson@hp.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 54DB43A68D4 for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 18:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.545
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.545 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.053, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 EOmil8LvHxRt for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 18:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from g4t0014.houston.hp.com (g4t0014.houston.hp.com [15.201.24.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB3723A68A7 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Oct 2009 18:16:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from G3W0630.americas.hpqcorp.net (g3w0630.americas.hpqcorp.net [16.233.58.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by g4t0014.houston.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7F172436A; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 01:18:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from G3W0055.americas.hpqcorp.net (16.232.1.152) by G3W0630.americas.hpqcorp.net (16.233.58.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.176.0; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 01:17:37 +0000
Received: from GVW0433EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net ([16.234.32.148]) by G3W0055.americas.hpqcorp.net ([16.232.1.152]) with mapi; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 01:17:37 +0000
From: "Dickson, Mike (ISS Software)" <mike.dickson@hp.com>
To: Meadhbh Hamrick <meadhbh.siobhan@gmail.com>, Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 01:17:01 +0000
Thread-Topic: [ogpx] Protocol for permitting policy decisions
Thread-Index: AcpHkOvk1RE6BS1RRfOYCMyTl300bQAI25kg
Message-ID: <4646639E08F58B42836FAC24C94624DD771A1BA1FA@GVW0433EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net>
References: <983F17705339E24699AA251B458249B50CC48CAEBF@EXCHANGE2K7.office.nic.se> <3a880e2c0910051239t3dcae895x4f6d5f4bf5d64cd@mail.gmail.com> <20091007203535.GA13882@alinoe.com> <b8ef0a220910071358x17b14245k671d5d41ebdf9ac7@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <b8ef0a220910071358x17b14245k671d5d41ebdf9ac7@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_4646639E08F58B42836FAC24C94624DD771A1BA1FAGVW0433EXBame_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Infinity Linden <infinity@lindenlab.com>, "ogpx@ietf.org" <ogpx@ietf.org>, Magnus Zeisig <magnus.zeisig@iis.se>
Subject: Re: [ogpx] Protocol for permitting policy decisions
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: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 01:16:52 -0000

Meadbah wrote:



i still like this scheme because a) it's really similar to the way

seed caps work, b) it adds flexibility to our system(s), and c) it

does what i was hoping... gives the AD the ability to make policy

decisions (like am i going to let this 15 year old user access

material that may land me in hot water with the local authorities.)



I may be mis-understanding all this since I'm still trying to come up to speed but isn't it the region that's making the policy decision here to allow/disallow a connect given what AD is representing about the user?  And yes, I agree that for this to work there must be trust established between the services involved.  I'm just confused by the above statement since it implies the AD is making a policy decision while it's really the RD that has the content (and hence the possible issue).  And the RD and AD may be run by two different entities....



Mike