Re: [ogpx] OGPX WG draft charter, 2009-08-19 revision

[Meadhbh Siobhan <[e-mail]>]

carlo. i think we're on the same page here with respect to the
definition of the term "world." part of the confusion may stem from
the fact that radically similar discussions came up in the MMOX
effort.

one of the objectives of the OGP protocol is to allow a virtual world
to be constructed from regions, agent hosts and asset servers from
different administrative domains. in order to do that, one of the
things we think we need to do is to have a scheme by which regions are
unambiguously identified with a URL. we don't currently list
"unambiguous landmarks" in the charter because we don't talk about
landmarks at all in the charter. it's also unclear whether a landmark
format will be defined as part of this effort.

that being said, if you have an unambiguous URL that addresses a
region, you could use that as the basis for a landmark quite easily.
remember that we're only specifying the protocol in this effort, not
the application that uses it. protocol messages that carry landmarks
aren't in-scope because we're not defining a service that will produce
or consume them.

however... i think you bring up a good point, we could be more
explicit about including the "unambiguous URL defines a region" thing
in the charter. This would put it in-scope and would allow app
developers to define their own landmark format that leverages it.

so i guess what i'm saying is that if we listed "a format for
unambiguous landmarks" in the charter, shouldn't we also list other
Second-Life-like features like the C/M/T permissions system? the
unambiguous URL representing a region is required for proper operation
of teleport, which IS in scope, but the unambiguous landmark format is
not required as landmarks are concepts more appropriately manipulated
by client applications.

so, is it enough to add verbiage to the charter indicating that the
protocol requires regions to be addressable by unambiguous URLs, but
not explicitly constrain their use in the charter?

-cheers
-meadhbh

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Carlo Wood<[e-mail]> wrote:
> I'm feeling a bit dizzy of all the terminology :p
> And, I'm still not sure if I understand it: it's still unclear.
>
> Perhaps we'll just have to use hard examples on this mailinglist
> first to make things clear, and only then we can think about
> ways to achieve the same clearness in more abstract terms.
>
> ---
>
> 1) Right now, there is 'Second Life', and there are several
>   opensim worlds that are very very like Second Life. Never I
>   am refering to or even thinking about WoW.
>
> 2) Right now, therefore, we can call those entirely separated
>   administrative domains, different "worlds", as has been
>   done in the past several years.
>
>   We might want to change that terminology, but let me use
>   "world" to refer the currently existing different worlds,
>   where "Second Life" is one of them and -say- "opengrid X" is
>   another.
>
> 3) These worlds are separated in EVERY way:
>   - You cannot teleport bewteen them.
>   - There is no notion of Landmarks that refer outside a given world.
>   - You cannot send IM's to avatars in the other world.
>   - You cannot access any asset (or inventory) of another world.
>
> 4) I thought that the OGPX effort had as goal to change this
>   *complete* separation.
>
> However, if we want to make these limitations vanish then they
> cannot be used to DEFINE what (separate) world mean... Hence,
> the term becomes undefined and unclear (in the future).
>
> But-- there are things that define the "worlds" that do NOT
> want to change:
>
> * The administration is entirely different:
>  - A TOS only applies to one world.
>  - An Abuse Report only has effect within one virtual world.
>  - A ban by such an administration only affects their own world.
>
> I think that most ideal situation would be when it is entirely
> and only the user that decides if they want to visit another world,
> completely independent of which world that is (as they can now
> by simply logging out, and logging in elsewhere).
>
> This CAN be supported; but it would mean to both region domain
> AND agent domain (in order to switch completely between administrations etc).
>
> Of course, viewers could simply support a seemless logout and login
> elsewhere, but we (the users) want support for this in the format
> of LandMarks, so that it is relatively easy to invite someone to
> that other place, in another world.
>
> Trivially, however, two major annoyances arrise with such a simple sheme:
>
> * The need to create a new account (avatar name / password)
> * Complete loss of access to inventory:
>  - loss of shape, skin, clothes and attachments during teleport
>  - loss of everything else in the inventory
>
> If I'm correct then the latter has everything to do with the
> agent domain; thus, if someone would stay in the same agent domain
> (ie, one run by Linden Lab), then one would not need to create a
> new account, would not need to logout and re-login, would not
> lose appearance or inventory.
>
> The question remains now:
>
> how will that affect the ideal solution? Because to the user those
> worlds will suddenly appear to be a single world.
>
> What if a griefer logins in with LL, teleports to opengrid X and
> halts a sim there by running 10,000 scripts in attachments.
>
> Whose TOS determines if that is allowed? I'd say opengrid X's tos.
> And if opengrid X's TOS does not allow halting a sim, then where does
> an Abuse Report go to? I'd say... still to opengrid X's administration.
> And when they decide to ban this person, will it be possible to
> ban that (LL) account from opengrid X?
>
> These questions are not trivial, but of utmost importance (yes,
> also for the protocol): any and all administrative issues should
> be a case of the administration of the *region* one is in, and
> never of the agent domain someone belongs to.
>
> As a result, an agent domain shouldn't care less where someone
> wants to go, because they are never responsible, and therefore
> it should NOT be a matter of policy where someone can or cannot
> teleport while keeping their inventory: it should simply be
> possible, because the address is given in the LandMark.
>
> --
> Carlo Wood <[e-mail]>
>