Re: [ogpx] VWRAP future (mostly out of protocol ramblings)

[Vaughn Deluca <[e-mail]>]

Maybe mostly out of protocol, but depicting the situation very well!-Vaughn

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Magnus Zeisig <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> In the future I think we will have a VWRAP metaverse similar to how the web
> works today. The VWRAP protocol will enable both private persons and major
> organizations to set up and interop, to the degree each entity wants, their
> own corner of the virtual world with the rest of that world. Just like on
> the web, we will see entities running "intra-metaverses", totally shut off
> or only to a limited degree open to the public. We will probably also see
> attempts by some major entities, just like e.g. Microsoft Network, to set
> their own standards and believe they are big enough to force others to adapt
> to those standards, and we will probably, just as was the case with
> Microsoft Network, see those attempts fail.
>
> In the beginning, there will probably be a few major players with a head
> starts and server parks, and a multitude of small players, running their
> pieces of the virtual world using e.g. OpenSimulator, on their desktop or
> laptop computers. Many of the small players will probably have the very
> simple policy of "If you want to connect, welcome, regardless of your
> credentials, but if you misbehave I will kick you out." In time, some of
> those small players will grow because they serve interesting content or
> create social networks with many users/visitors. Most of them will probably
> see a need to develop more strict policies to enable administration of their
> services at all, so they don't have to spend all day kicking abusers
> returning time after time with new identities, disrupting the experience for
> other users.
>
> Those service and domain managers requesting some kind of trust domain to
> allow others using or connecting to their services and domains will either
> cut themselves off from all those small players running their domains or
> services home in their kitchen or cupboard, ease up on their demands for
> domains of trust, or simplify the procedure so that the necessary domain of
> trust can be established via electronic signatures on the first connection.
> If they choose to remain cut off from the rest of the metaverse, they will
> probably soon be forgotten islands in the sea of tens or hundreds of
> thousands minor domains and services interoping more freely.
>
> The point is that the VWRAP protocol will not proscribe how you should run
> your service, open or as a walled garden, small or big. It will permit you
> to interop to the degree you chose yourself, not forcing you to interop any
> more or less than that. Other factors, like international law, national
> legislation, ISP TOS, organization policies and such, may force you to set
> limitations or raise requirements on with who and how you interop, but VWRAP
> should offer you the tool to do so, regardless of if you want, or are
> forced, to run a strictly regulated walled garden alone or including a few
> trusted peers, by supporting the communication needed for
> policy-enforcement, or run a no-holds-barred free-for-everyone operation, by
> not requiring the use of any policy-support whatsoever.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Magnus
>
>
> - -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: Morgaine [mailto:[e-mail]<[e-mail]>]
>
> Skickat: den 8 oktober 2009 11:42
> Till: Magnus Zeisig
> Kopia: [e-mail]
> Ämne: Re: [ogpx] Protocol for permitting policy decisions
>
> Magnus,
>
> If ADs are involved in region policy, then in the multi-world deployment
> pattern, AD2 will have to be consulted when agent A1 teleports from RD1 to
> RD2, because AD2 will be involved in region policy too.  It's symmetric with
> AD1.
>
> This is what Joshua wanted to avoid, and it can only be avoided by not
> giving ADs policy control over regions, otherwise symmetry requires that AD2
> be consulted as well.
>
> It's this kind of problem that reinforces what David's been saying about
> the right mess we currently have when talking about domains determining
> policy.  The AD/RD split was reasonably adequate when OGP was only extending
> a single world with policy-free regions, but it is insufficient to do a good
> job once we get into multi-world deployments with more complex service and
> policy patterns which require much more flexibility.
>
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 9.8.3 (Build 4028)
> Charset: utf-8
>
> wsBVAwUBSs3BOO5MlU9XyaiSAQj2yQgAjrwKp/YhSe+o8klsPg/LV+G6XS1LaBh9
> 2kEc31liqvttvOHYoRdhrCMT2Yh5F0PKjb/daDqK/3duTgTbz277sZS+P5xnfzxr
> gsJN4Y//kuKcdmc3rQTaYafo9azl4JslPKNiQ2lSTcKDwAA1jn5hamBuiP1TdxQD
> 1GQH4zhOPvEkfPJKCW4yGJdyp30dYdYFv6Ka/Rl5vAesPXStmpoBQ6x9fxtSpvVT
> VV6YMJyEUYCnU+1voGO/rCJt1AKNJCOUnCXx0N+a5Xrix0oW7azx3xw6G6/RCuVv
> GY+lweiE/bqfTb4Qr8/edV4Ffey2fo21plKABQ5worpGKL9/kfg2iw==
> =1YBE
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>