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

[Morgaine <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 4:25 AM, Dickson, Mike (ISS Software) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>
>
> Again, I don’t understand this assertion given this is an already existing
> practice.
>

It is "existing practice" in one single proprietary virtual world (Second
Life), and nowhere else.  In particular, it is not existing practice in the
many open virtual worlds that use the Opensim framework.

And further on the proprietary example, SL added it only very recently, and
that despite mass objections from a good 90% of its resident population who
were completely ignored and overridden in the alleged "consultation".

So your attempt at making this sound normal and desired merely reflects your
minority bias and lack of concern for balkanizing the metaverse even further
than the "trust agreements" are going to do already.

No thanks.  Age restrictions have no place in an IETF interop protocol.

As payload, of course everything will be carried, but we don't need to add a
totally ridiculous piece of security theater to the protocol just to carry
such data.


Morgaine.






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

On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 4:25 AM, Dickson, Mike (ISS Software) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>  On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Dickson, Mike (ISS Software) <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> The algorithm or mechanism to enforce an age related connection policy is
> outside the scope of the protocol, yes.  But its not at all  inconceivable
> that the protocol could carry age information as an attribute that an AD/RD
> pair could use to make a decision as to whether a connection is to be
> allowed.
>
> As carried payload, sure.  Just like an SMTP message could carry a message
> body or even a Subject line about the age of a mail user or about the ages
> of the MTA sysadmins.  But that's not at the level of protocol at all.  If
> the SMTP protocol dealt with the ages of the users of its endpoint
> applications as a machine-processable semantic, we would be entering an age
> of total madness and police states.
>
> Except that in the case of virtual worlds there already is a practice
> around defining regions in terms of age specific characteristics.  Are you
> saying you don’t like the practice so you don’t want it in the protocol?  Or
> are you really saying it’s not necessary and if so how do you propose
> someone providing a region to a VW environment who wishes to restrict it to
> “Adult” content where age matters.  And I don’t understand your assertion
> that its not at the “protocol” level…  In an SMTP exchange when I connect
> and send the HELO I generally need to identify myself.  The from address is
> an attribute in the same way that age information could be carried in the
> protocol (in SMTP more analogous to the additional message headers like
> mailer, etc).
>
> Admittedly, there are totally mad people and police-state advocates around,
> but hopefully we are not among them.  Particularly when it's purely *security
> theater* and doesn't actually achieve anything.
>
> Again, I don’t understand this assertion given this is an already existing
> practice.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
> =======================================
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Dickson, Mike (ISS Software) <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> The algorithm or mechanism to enforce an age related connection policy is
> outside the scope of the protocol, yes.  But its not at all  inconceivable
> that the protocol could carry age information as an attribute that an AD/RD
> pair could use to make a decision as to whether a connection is to be
> allowed.
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of
> *Morgaine
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 03, 2009 6:34 PM
> *To:* Carlo Wood
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [ogpx] VWRAP Draft Charter - 2009 09 01
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Carlo Wood <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 10:52:18PM +0100, Morgaine wrote:
> > It's important to highlight (as you did) that issues such as age
> verification
> > have no place in a worldwide IETF protocol standard, so while you provide
> a
> > good example of policy variations among worlds, any such agreements are
> outside
> > of the context of our protocol.
>
> Not entirely... age verification is necessary in many countries with
> what's going on in an SL-like world.
>
> A RD cannot do the age-verification; that is a job for an AD.
>
> However, I think it's the RD that needs to make the decision whether
> or not a user is allowed in (based on its age), which in turn means
> that the AD has to tell the RD if it knows the age, and if so, what
> it is; hence, it should be part of the protocol.
>
>
> It's no business of an IETF protocol to deal with the age of participants.
> That's like SMTP rejecting connections or mail delivery based on the ages of
> the MTA operator and owner of the mail client.  The whole idea is completely
> ludicrous, not to mention unimplementable.
>
> Please let's try not to engage in what Schneier calls "security theater", a
> politically correct feelgood factor that actually achieves nothing while
> adding layers of red tape and complexity.
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
>
>