Re: [ogpx] Tourist use case

Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com> Mon, 02 November 2009 11:49 UTC

Return-Path: <carlo@alinoe.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 5D6E13A685A for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 03:49:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.876
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.876 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.294, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745]
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 YVjkk-TwDm4i for <ogpx@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 03:49:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from viefep16-int.chello.at (viefep16-int.chello.at [62.179.121.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2519E3A6819 for <ogpx@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 03:49:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from edge02.upc.biz ([192.168.13.237]) by viefep16-int.chello.at (InterMail vM.7.09.01.00 201-2219-108-20080618) with ESMTP id <20091102115008.HYIW27636.viefep16-int.chello.at@edge02.upc.biz>; Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:50:08 +0100
Received: from mail9.alinoe.com ([77.250.43.12]) by edge02.upc.biz with edge id 0Bq51d0Lg0FlQed02Bq7RJ; Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:50:08 +0100
X-SourceIP: 77.250.43.12
Received: from carlo by mail9.alinoe.com with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <carlo@alinoe.com>) id 1N4vPd-0004sb-Qb; Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:49:29 +0100
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:49:29 +0100
From: Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>
To: Joshua Bell <josh@lindenlab.com>
Message-ID: <20091102114929.GA19073@alinoe.com>
References: <9b8a8de40910160034j11dcb94fm401f29814aed60a8@mail.gmail.com> <3a880e2c0910160116g7a7e488fpe03b10d9b534aa35@mail.gmail.com> <9b8a8de40910160635j268ef9c9mae55781221c94d7e@mail.gmail.com> <20091029134353.GB2298@alinoe.com> <e0b04bba0910300029jd385ea7s1ab66a6d67b084d4@mail.gmail.com> <f72742de0910301023i266832d3ta7c96cc13985e959@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f72742de0910301023i266832d3ta7c96cc13985e959@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: ogpx@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ogpx] Tourist use case
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, 02 Nov 2009 11:49:51 -0000

Using common sense, I'd say:

* If you try to rez an object, policy comes in to determine if that is allowed.

* Once an object is rezzed, EVERYONE that is in the region (that is allowed to
  enter the region thus) can SEE that object (and interact with it).

I realize that it is *possible* for the region to implement a policy
where it selectively shows data to some people and not to others, but
I don't think we have to officially support every possible way to screw
up shared experience in VWRAP, just because it would be possible to do so.

Compare with a protocol like SMPT: that dictates that if some email is
received, it is required to react in one of a few given ways. There are
other ways, but that would make the system stop functioning as intended,
so that is Not The Idea.


I agree with you that information needed to see a rezzed object should
come from the region (simulator), so -- in principle there is no direct
reason that a viewer needs to have access to every asset server whose
assets are rezzed.


An interesting question is now: what about assets that make up an
avatar? Once in-world, attaching a new attachment, or changing clothes
or shape, is just the same as rezzing of course: if the asset server
allows access (by that region) than the region can buffer it and show
it to everyone; otherwise attachment, or change of appearance, is disallowed.
However, in the case of teleportation I think we need to act more
intelligent than just black or white (allow or disallow the TP):
I'm in favour of allowing the TP independent of assets being used at
that moment, but instead detach assets and/or Ruth the avatar if
need be (at least, give the user that option).

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 10:23:43AM -0700, Joshua Bell wrote:
> Be careful about blurring the use of "asset services" between "stuff in
> regions" and "stuff I have". I think there is a big intersection - and may have
> the same characteristics and/or protocols, but I also think they are are
> distinct. I would guess that there will be asset services associated with both
> agents and regions - off the top of my head:
> 
> Uses of an agent-associated "asset" service:
> * content to client app (inspect your inventory)
> * content from client app (upload/import to inventory)
> * content to region (rez something)
> * content from region (buy/take something)
> * content to agent (give something)
> * content from agent (receive something)
> 
> Uses of an region-associated "asset" service:
> * content to client app (see the world)
> * content from client app (upload/import to region)
> * content to region (during teleport/region crossing)
> * content from region (during teleport/region crossing)
> * content to agent (buy/take something)
> * content from agent (rez something)
> 
> I'm using "asset" in quotes since that term may be overloaded. "Content" might
> be a better term.

-- 
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>