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

[Joshua Bell <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Morgaine <[e-mail]>wrote:

>
> Unfortunately, you then wrote:
>
> it should be the case that ADs carry policies about region services...
>
> Is there a typo in that?  If it's free of typos and hence ADs carry
> policies about region services, then clearly AD2 *does* have to be
> consulted before you can TP from RD1 to RD2.  (I assume it has a typo, and
> you actually meant to write "do *not* carry policies about region
> services", to make this line consistent with what you said above.)
>
>
Ugh, yes, typo... I indeed meant to echo your statement: "ADs carry no
region-related policies". Thanks for catching that.


One promising angle stems from this very interesting phrase of yours:
>
> ... by definition the AD2 and RD2 services are disjoint.
>>
>
> It's a bit ambiguous though:
>
>    - If by this you mean that AD1 has no say over region services in RD2,
>    then that's very cool! :-)  (It's cool because it provides DDP and hence
>    allows tourism.)
>
>
Did you mean AD2 or AD1? I agree for AD2. For AD1, being nitpicky, here's a
scenario that possibly contradicts that: if RD2 tries to give you inventory,
AD1 may refuse it since it is the final arbiter of your agent (and hence
your inventory). I'm not sure if that counts as "say over region services"
or not. Based on previous conversation, I think we agree that in that
scenario, AD1 is enforcing agent-related policy in the interaction with
region services, not "having a say" over those region services.


>
>    -
>    - But instead you might mean the following:  "*if RD2 uses some service
>    of type X, say X2, then AD1 cannot provide an X service when in RD2"*.
>    That would be extremely not cool, since this would totally block meaningful
>    tourism.  For example, RD2 could be using Asset Service AS2, as a result of
>    which AD1 would not supply an asset service to its travelling agent A1, and
>    hence A1 would never be able to appear in RD2 wearing any asset available in
>    W1.  Clearly this interpretation would mean no useful interop between W1 and
>    W2 at all.  I'm hoping this interpretation is wrong.
>
> This is an extremely good point. "Disjoint" was too strong a word. I don't
think we've sorted out assets yet, but from early brainstorming, asset
services could indeed be provided by both ADs and RDs. (And a VW provider
might host just one asset service that its ADs and RDs both reference.)
"Mostly disjoint" :)