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

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

I agree Joshua, I think we are converging. :-)

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Joshua Bell <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Morgaine <[e-mail]>wrote:
>
>
>> There *IS* one way of allowing the above, and that is to require that ADs
>> carry no region-related policies at all, so that consulting only the
>> destination RD is sufficient.  This would give us a perfect *Destination
>> Determines Policy* (DDP) system.  The W1 resident could then TP from RD1
>> to RD2 without consulting AD2 at all.
>>
>
.... and so it looks like we're in agreement ...


That's a very good start then.  If ADs have no region-related policies, then
AD2 clearly doesn't need to be consulted when RD2 is entered from RD1.

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.)

Leaving the above to be clarified, we seem to be arriving at a *Destination
Determines Policy* (DDP) model which makes tourism possible, by giving RDs
control over their region-related policies so that AD2 doesn't need to be
consulted on entry to RD2.  That's fine, but it's not yet clear how you're
going to achieve this since you haven't narrowed the scope of the AD to
exclude region services.

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.)
   - 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.


I'd appreciate more info about the disjointness please, to clear up this
ambiguity.

>
>
> I believe I may have misread some of your earlier posts as implying that
> the agent's AD was not allowed to have a say in policy decisions, only the
> destination RD. I have a clearer reading of your DDP statement, though, that
> of course it's the AD reasoning about the RD, and contrariwise the RD
> reasoning about the AD. If we call that "DDP" then we're copacetic.
>
> Ah good, I think we're starting to talk the same language now. :-)  AD1 has
plenty to say in regards to a TP from RD1 to RD2, as long as it sticks to
the affairs of its own world W1 and its own agent A1.  What it cannot do is
impose W1's region-related policies on W2's regions, otherwise we end up
with Vaughn's "war on purple". ;-)   In other words, once in RD2, DDP
applies and AD1 has no say.

The DDP principle is so obvious from our experience in RL that I didn't
bother explaining its scope, but perhaps some basic scoping is needed to
alleviate fears that the source AD has no say at all.  The only thing that
DDP requires is that the travelling agent *obey the law of the land* on
arrival in W2, namely the region-related policies that hold in RD2, and not
those that would hold in a W1 homeworld region like RD1.  It's pretty
simple, and non-optional if tourism between worlds is desired.  "When in
Rome, do as the Romans do" says it all.

As you say, I believe we're converging. :-)


Morgaine.







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

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Joshua Bell <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I think we're converging...
>
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Morgaine <[e-mail]>wrote:
>
>>
>> Those are valid examples, but they're cherry picked to support your
>> specific use case.
>>
>>
> Well, simplified examples. I don't believe more complicated examples
> actually add meaningfully at a protocol level, as will become clear...
>
>
>> Please examine the more general use case of two complete SL-like worlds
>> using VWRAP, W1 and W2.  They both have ADs and RDs, so let's label those
>> with 1's and 2's accordingly.
>>
>
> At a protocol level, I don't think VWs exist. There are services, which
> we're clustering into AD and RD. Although we may later determine there are
> further subdivisions, that's our working model in the drafts. Further drafts
> are strongly encouraged!
>
>
>> If both ADs and RDs determine policy together (as you stated), then you
>> can't expect a resident of W1 to TP from RD1 to RD2 without AD2's policy
>> coming into play, otherwise you would be subverting AD2's policy.
>>
>
> Here's the crux of the issue: in our model, the provider of W2 is offering
> two sets of services, AD2 and RD2. There may be a policy covering W2 in
> general, which would affect the AD2 and RD2 services. However, if an agent
> "from" W1, meaning the agent services are provided by AD1, attempts to visit
> RD2, then AD2 does *not* come into play. The protocol describes the
> negotiation between the client, AD1 and RD2 *only*.
>
> (Again, this is insofar as the model in the current drafts are concerned.
> If we're missing something, please bring the conversation back to the drafts
> and point out issues and/or submit new work for discussion!)
>
> Let me restate: even if AD2 and RD2 are governed by the same policy -
> potentially even to the point of being implemented by the same monolithic
> piece of code! - AD2 is irrelevant *from a protocol perspective* in the
> attempt to place an agent from AD1 into AD2, since by definition the AD2 and
> RD2 services are disjoint.
>
>
>> There *IS* one way of allowing the above, and that is to require that ADs
>> carry no region-related policies at all, so that consulting only the
>> destination RD is sufficient.  This would give us a perfect *Destination
>> Determines Policy* (DDP) system.  The W1 resident could then TP from RD1
>> to RD2 without consulting AD2 at all.
>>
>
> .... and so it looks like we're in agreement - if this wasn't clear, then
> we need to review the drafts (please, go for it!); it should be the case
> that ADs carry policies about region services... except, of course, that the
> AD may say "hey, you can't go to *that* RD...".
>
> I believe I may have misread some of your earlier posts as implying that
> the agent's AD was not allowed to have a say in policy decisions, only the
> destination RD. I have a clearer reading of your DDP statement, though, that
> of course it's the AD reasoning about the RD, and contrariwise the RD
> reasoning about the AD. If we call that "DDP" then we're copacetic.
>
>
>
>> If you wish to define ADs in this way then we are in perfect agreement,
>> since DDP is essential for interop between worlds.  I am hoping that this is
>> what you had in mind for when we start discussing specific AD and RD
>> policies. :-)
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ogpx mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx
>
>