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

[Infinity Linden <[e-mail]>]

ack. and when i say "i guess i'm  too much of libertarian at heart to
have a protocol demand that each participant or pair of participants
use exactly the same PROTOCOL," i obviously mean "i guess i'm too much
of libertarian at heart to have a protocol demand that each
participant or pair of participants use exactly the same POLICY."

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Infinity Linden <[e-mail]> wrote:
> we will not be able to reach consensus with a protocol that supports
> "destination determines policy" exclusively.
>
> if we want to add that as an option, i'm down with that, but i cannot
> imagine my employer signing onto a proposal that would disallow the
> agent domain from enforcing it's policies as well as the region
> domain's policies.
>
> but the great thing about policies is they're outside of the protocol
> definition. so... i'm hip to adding the "tourist model" as a supported
> use case if this will allow us to get on with more important matters.
>
> i would suggest we not add the "allowed to wear clothes" bits to the
> protocol, but leave this as a POLICY for the deployers. personally, i
> have NO PROBLEM with an agent domain and a region domain making
> asymmetric agreements. that is, if region domain X wants to make
> policy A with agent domain Y, but wants to make a different policy
> (call it policy B) with agent domain Z, well good on 'em. i guess i'm
> too much of libertarian at heart to have a protocol demand that each
> participant or pair of participants use exactly the same protocol.
>
> -cheers
> -meadhbh
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Carlo Wood <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> ***************************************************************
>> * Hence, it is possible to apply the simplication:            *
>> *- AD policies ONLY come into play at the moment of teleport  *
>> *  (allow or not).                                            *
>> *- Once arrived in a new region, the policies of the AD can   *
>> *  be 'forgotten' and only the policies of the RD apply.      *
>> *  If the AD doesn't want that, they shouldn't allow the TP.  *
>> ***************************************************************
>>
>> The rationale behind this is that this is the only reasonable
>> way to achieve that for any two people in a given region, the
>> same rules apply.
>>
>> Hopefully we can reach consensus on that it would be unworkable
>> if one person is allowed to X, while the person next to him/her
>> is not, where X being anything and everything.
>>
>> Example, one person is allowed to use avatar Foo without clothes,
>> then everyone in the region should be allowed to use avatar Foo
>> without clothes (not taking into account local rules set by
>> sim owner or parcel owner).
>>
>> Since two different people can be using two different AD's,
>> no AD can force a limitation upon a user (beyond what the
>> region already demands) because another AD might not enforce
>> that leading to different rules for different people in the
>> same region.
>>
>> It's really quite logical, almost trivial, but seeing previous
>> confusion about things on this list it would be nice to see
>> people agree. Thanks!
>>
>> --
>> Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>
>>
>