Re: [vwrap] vwrap Digest, Vol 11, Issue 24

[Sean Hennessee <[e-mail]>]

On 3/30/11 5:17 PM, Morgaine wrote:
> That's a good requirement, Sean.
>
> However, you're suggesting a rather inflexible way of achieving it, 
> because it would rely on one world giving you access to another 
> world.  This doesn't scale at all when you consider thousands, let 
> alone millions, of destination worlds.
I think you misunderstand my example.

The 'Grid Y' authentication service that was used in the example is the 
one that the end user _chose_ to use, not forced by a restriction of 
it's current grid or poor protocol definition. They would have the 
option to choose any authentication service they want, like OpenID, 
Facebook, Google, their home grid's authentication service, or their own 
home grown authentication service they are running for themselves. They 
could even have the option to connect to a grid that does not require 
authentication. Some grids will allow only a few authentication 
methods/services; some grids won't allow any except their own, and some 
grids won't care.

An additional thought would be having the ability to have a list of 
authentication services that you, the end user, are willing to use, (via 
some preferences in the client viewer application), leaving the 
negotiation process to determine which one to use, (or none at all), for 
that particular destination grid.

Other options that could be negotiated during the authentication phase 
could be asset services used, IM services used, voice services used, 
etc. These would not necessarily be options set by the end users current 
grid, but by the end user herself, (through the viewer client program 
likely). As above, some grids may accept any asset service, or only a 
limited list of trusted asset services, or none at all except it's own. 
This should not be limited to only one of each service, either. I 
commonly login to Yahoo and AIM at the same time to connect with friends 
that are only connect to one service or the other.

There really has to be some kind of negotiations, otherwise you could be 
doing the equivalent of telling Google that you planned to login to 
their webmail service using AOL's Instant Messenger authentication 
services, whether they allow it or not.

Peace,
Sean
> Also, it would result in balkanization of the metaverse, as 
> restrictive world operators seek to prevent you from travelling to 
> worlds they don't like.  We'd end up with prison enclaves in which the 
> only way for inmates to "escape" to visit friends in non-permitted 
> worlds would be to log out from this prison and log in to a different 
> one, which defeats most of the benefits of VW interop.  It's a poor 
> approach.
>
> Fortunately there is a much better way to achieve this, and David 
> hinted at it when he wrote about the near impossibility of one world 
> forcing local policy onto services run by somebody else.  If your 
> assets are not held by a world operator but in an independent external 
> asset service (which could even be on your local system), then you 
> don't need to ask the current world for "permission" to teleport to 
> some other world, since you (or your external asset service) can 
> supply all of the resources needed by the destination world directly.  
> No more prison planet.
>
> The Web doesn't usually provide a good analogy with virtual worlds 
> because its architecture is substantially different in several areas.  
> However, in respect of teleports the analogy is a direct one.  One 
> world should not limit your ability to teleport to another world any 
> more than one website should have a say on which website you visit next.
>
> In summary, the inter-world teleport requirement that you describe is 
> a good one, but it should not be implemented as a cooperative 
> agreement between worlds because that has very negative repercussions 
> for residents, turning them into hapless inmates and splitting 
> communities apart.
>
> Instead, VWRAP provides the excellent concept of independent external 
> shared asset services which can serve content to multiple worlds.  
> Using them we can design a teleport protocol that empowers users and 
> helps the open metaverse bloom, instead of enslaving them and 
> balkanizing worlds into non-communicating factions.
>
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
>
>
> ======================
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 12:20 AM, Sean Hennessee <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     So, for example, one protocol we would like to define, in the name
>     of VW interoperability, is how a client, (a viewer and it's user
>     in this case), communicates, to a specific grid X authentication
>     server, that it wants to connect to that grid using grid Y
>     authentication server, which could be another grid or facebook,
>     etc. The communication that happens there needs to have some way
>     to determine if that grid Y authentication service is allowed or
>     known, and if it was successful in authenticating you, among other
>     things. So, this is, in a way, service level interop, but like you
>     said, a bit orthogonal. Also, in addition to the communication
>     between the above service and client, there would have to be
>     communication between grid X authentication service and grid Y
>     authentication service. More protocol this group would likely
>     specify, I assume.
>
>     Peace,
>     Sean
>
>
>     On 03/30/2011 03:40 PM, Morgaine wrote:
>
>         Very well put, Vaughn.
>
>         Regarding "service level interoperability", it's not really a
>         subset of
>         VW interoperability at all, but lies orthogonal to it because
>         it is a
>         property of all multipart systems that implement services.
>          I'll try to
>         explain.
>
>         Client-server systems for example have at least two distinct
>         parts with
>         distinct roles, server(s) and client(s).  Service-level
>         interoperability
>         typically consists of designing and specifying the protocols or
>         interfaces between them in such a way that any part of the
>         system is
>         interchangeable with another equivalent part that performs the
>         same
>         role, say from a different manufacturer, and the system as a
>         whole still
>         continues to work normally.
>
>         This rarely needs to be honored with a fancy title such as
>         "service
>         level interoperability" in these days of IETF standards and highly
>         cross-platform web applications.  Historically however,
>         applications did
>         not behave quite so nicely, and vendors often sought to lock
>         customers
>         in with hidden proprietary interfaces, so there was a need for
>         adding
>         "service level interoperability" to the tendering
>         documentation in days
>         gone by, to avoid surprises later on.
>
>         Today, the need for that has almost disappeared, and if your
>         online
>         service has a documented protocol interface then "service level
>         interoperability" is virtually assured without doing anything
>         at all,
>         assuming normal commonsense has prevailed during development
>         (and there
>         is no deliberate obfuscation of course).  There is only one
>         other area
>         of this topic where a little more needs to be said.
>
>         Protocol messages can normally be validated syntactically to a
>         strong
>         degree, and whether a message is correct or not is normally known
>         immediately upon syntactic validation.  Unfortunately, that is not
>         always the end of the story, because protocols can transport
>         complex
>         data items which are valid syntactically yet invalid semantically.
>
>         This is the last vestige of where that term is commonly
>         encountered, as
>         *Service Level Semantic Interoperability*.  Is it relevant to
>         us?  Yes,
>         a little.  For example, it would do us no good to transport
>         Collada
>         meshes from an asset service to a client that tries to render
>         them as
>         some other graphics format --- that would create a semantic
>         mishap,
>         because one party thinks that the items means one thing and
>         another
>         party applies a different semantic.  So yes, there is a little
>         more for
>         us to consider here, but it's not a lot.  In most part we have
>         already
>         stated the solution every time that we have mentioned MIME
>         types for
>         describing content.  This is mostly a solved problem.
>
>         There may be one or two other areas where we have to specify the
>         required semantic alongside the simple matter of protocol
>         syntax, but
>         that's a standard part of defining protocols.  There is
>         nothing really
>         new here.
>
>         Lastly, service level interoperability focuses entirely on single
>         services and their clients, so it's unrelated to interoperability
>         between multiple services, such as a set of virtual world
>         services.
>         This means that, apart from defining type semantics, it
>         doesn't get us
>         even a step closer towards interop between virtual worlds.
>
>
>         Morgaine.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>         ==========================
>
>         On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Vaughn Deluca
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>
>            Katherine wrote:
>         >It seems to me that accomodating "full" interop only would
>         reduce the
>         >number of possible implementers and use cases for our work
>
>            I am sure that nobody  suggested to we restrict ourselves
>         to "full"
>            interop only.
>            "Service level interop" is clearly subset of VW
>         interoperability. You
>            can't have VW interoperability without service level
>         interoperability!
>            However, If i understand Morgaine right, she is worried
>         that the VWRAP
>            specs will be *restricted* to service level interop only.
>
>            It has been argued (sorry, I forgot by whom) that proper
>            specifications of service level interop will give us
>         virtual world
>            interop for free. I think we need a bit more, but i really
>         have a hard
>            time envisioning how service level interop can be specified
>         in such a
>            way that it *prevents* VW interop, at least not if we pay
>         attention to
>            this aspect, and clearly we do. So in conclusion i do not
>         see much of
>            a problem.
>
>            Izzy wrote in another tread "This whole argument between
>         service level
>            interop and 'full' interop eludes me." At first it eluded
>         me to, but
>            now i think that what is actually expressed in these
>         discussions is
>            the question of the scope of our effort as well as design
>         approach.
>            Some prefer to work bottom up, following their primary
>         interests in
>            getting the low level protocols working, especially since
>         that will
>            already be good enough for (all?) of their use cases . Some
>         prefer a
>            more top-down approach, first sketching the high level
>         picture of the
>            users perception of VW interop,  and from there working
>         downwards,
>            obviously also because that approach optimises the
>         realisation of
>            *their* use cases.
>
>            I think we need both, and above all, i do feel that the two
>         approaches
>            are not al all incompatible and both are without any doubt
>         square
>            within the current charter.
>            Formally splitting our effort in two working parties along
>         the current
>            visible fissures and getting each to work on their own
>         interest is a
>            recipe for disaster. It will only strengthen the animosity
>         that is
>            already slowing us down tremendously, and will sustain the
>         infighting.
>            Rather than spitting efforts off, we need to address the
>         causes for
>            the current disagreement and found common ground.  In my
>         view that is
>            not all all hard.
>
>            I have been reviewing the discussion we had in September
>         and i am
>            actually amazed at the level of consensus that is expressed
>         in those
>            email exchanges. Unfortuanately we have been very bad at
>         consolidating
>            that consensus. As a result we recycle the same problems
>         time and time
>            again. The archives make very depressing reading from that
>         point of
>            view. We need to do more documentation for sure.
>
>            I am currently going over the September discussion and
>         looking up the
>            places were we all agreed on the way forward.  Much of that
>         is still
>            undocumented, and my aim is to get those points written
>         down in the
>            wiki.
>
>            As i final point i want to make clear how I understand the term
>            "Service Level Interop". I used the term, and since the
>         glosary entry
>            is still emtpy, i feel obliged to add at least my personal
>         reading. If
>            somebody disagrees, please add an improved version.
>
>            Service level interoperability:
>                    A subset of "Virtual World Interoperability" as
>         defined by
>            the VWRAP
>            protocol. Service level interoperabity loosely describes
>         specific
>            interactions between VWRAP endpoints. These inteactions
>         form the glue
>            that hold a particular virtual world together, but might
>         just as well
>            be used for communication between different VWRAP
>         compatible virtual
>            worlds (i.e. crossing trust domains).
>
>            I intend to put this up in the glossary, but first will see
>         how it
>            flies here  :)
>
>            On 3/29/11, Katherine Mancuso <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>         > Hi everyone,
>         >
>         > I want to speak up for agreeing with Meadhbh & Mike about
>         keeping a
>         > role for service level interop in this group.  We've made good
>         > progress towards this goal and can continue to work on it.
>         >
>         > Here is an alternative proposal to any which has been
>         brought up so
>         > far.  I'm aware this may not be fully correct in its technical
>         > details, as I am not a software architect:
>         >
>         > Could the partisans of "full" VW interop consider working
>         together on
>         > a draft specification that is something like the intro or
>         David's
>         > piece in scope that lays out which specific capacities would
>         need to
>         > be supported at a minimum to allow for "full" interop, perhaps
>            getting
>         > input from implementers such as the Hypergrid folks and the
>         folks who
>         > coordinated the teleport test at Linden?  Citing existing
>         service
>         > specifications (either ones developed within this WG, or outside
>         > specifications like XML, Collada, etc) is preferred, and for
>         > capabilities for which there are not existing service
>         specifications
>         > or the existing specifications don't work well enough, address
>            that to
>         > lay out a clear roadmap of what must be developed.
>         >
>         > My vision here is that folks who are doing service-level
>         work could
>         > continue developing and implementing their individual
>         services, and
>         > the folks who wish to do "full" interop could define a menu of
>         > services which must be implemented for "full" interop.
>          Implementers
>         > could then choose their path based on their use cases:
>         implement the
>         > "full" interop specification including all the
>         specifications called
>         > for, or implement individual services.  I believe that both
>         of these
>         > concepts can exist under our existing charter or with limited
>         > amendment to the charter and intro, which is much easier for
>         everyone
>         > to agree to than entirely rewriting both, and does not require
>         > trashing years of work.
>         >
>         > It seems to me that accomodating "full" interop only would
>         reduce the
>         > number of possible implementers and use cases for our work
>         > dramatically, not to mention cut out a productive body of
>         folks in
>         > this group who have been contributing an awful lot of
>         documents and
>         > implementing.
>         >
>         > For example, to illustrate my point:
>         >
>         > From my work as a SL developer focusing in education, I know
>            there's a
>         > substantial use case in K-12 education in the US for walled
>         gardens,
>         > because schools have big legal liability problems with
>         letting minors
>         > wander unwalled virtual worlds (most school libraries in the
>         US have
>         > internet filters for the same reasons) and have fairly intense
>         > supervision requirements which require substantial moderation &
>         > surveillance tools.  However, a shared asset server that
>         contains a
>         > core of "safe" content might be of interest to these folks,
>         since
>         > educators don't necessarily need to reinvent the wheel for their
>         > classrooms every year.  This is a really good case for
>         service level
>         > interop ... implement the asset server specification only,
>         not the
>         > "full" one that allows you to teleport to other worlds.
>         >
>         > On the other hand, universities have far greater interest in
>         letting
>         > students and professors teleport among university spaces (which
>         > happens metaphorically in the real world all the time), and
>         fewer
>         > liability issues.  Sharing an asset server might be of
>         interest to
>         > them, but so too might "full" interop.  They'd want to
>         implement the
>         > "full" interop specification.
>         >
>         > (Paging Fleep Tuque, are you here to make this case better
>         for me?)
>         >
>         > TL;DR - Proposal is to amend the charter & intro so that
>         they allow
>         > the "full" interop people to work in one community on their
>         ideas and
>         > the service level interop people to work in parallel on
>         their ideas,
>         > rather than assuming that one model has to exclusively
>         dominate the
>         > group.
>         >
>         > I will be unavailable to post anything else much lengthy through
>            3 April,
>         > FYI.
>         >
>         > Katherine
>         >
>         > --
>         >
>          
>          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         > Katherine Mancuso
>         >
>         > ISIS Inc, Community Manager (http://www.isis-inc.org)
>         > Sex::Tech Conference, Social Media Chair
>         (http://www.sextech.org)
>         > The Vesuvius Group: metaverse community builders
>         > (http://www.thevesuviusgroup.com)
>         > GimpGirl Community Liaison (http://www.gimpgirl.com)
>         >
>         > http://twitter.com/musingvirtual
>         > http://facebook.com/kmancuso
>         > http://www.linkedin.com/in/kathymancuso
>         > Second Life: Muse Carmona
>         >
>          
>          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         > _______________________________________________
>         > vwrap mailing list
>         > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>
>         > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>         >
>            _______________________________________________
>            vwrap mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         vwrap mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>
>     -- 
>
>     Sean Hennessee
>     Central Computing Support
>     Office of Information Technology
>     UC Irvine
>
>
>     ... . .- -. /  .... . -. -. . ... ... . .
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     vwrap mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap