- WRT to the user agent itself (i.e. name, appearance, etc.), the user's user agent service (a grid-level service) is the party responsible for creating user agents that are launched at foreign grids. As such, that component is the authority that defines what agent data to send. If the user agent service of one grid so wishes, all of its users' agents can be anonymized and stripped off their clothes before going out.
- HG 1.5 has another, symmetric, grid-level component called the Gatekeeper which has the role of deciding what comes in to its grid. So if the Gatekeeper so wishes, it can anonymize all foreign user agents and strip them off their clothes before allowing them in.
In other words, the user agent service and the gatekeeper service are the yin and yang of the Hypergrid.
[email protected] wrote:
[unrelated to the narrow issue at hand, but since people want to know, here goes]HG 1.5 has a trust/security model. The base case is one where grids are peers, and the traveling of one user agent from his home grid to another establishes the *base trust* in the following manner:- Everything that the agent references from his home grid is made available to the foreign grid where the user is. In other words, the user is the driver of trust.- Everything else that is not referenced by the visiting agent is out of reach. "Out of reach" is a soft security model, i.e. the resources are available on the internet, but you need to know their identifiers in order to get them. Their identifiers behave as capabilities. This is the part that still needs work, as Melanie thinks 'soft' is not enough.This trust model is the base upon which trust policies can be defined. In other words, we now have the basis to add additional grid-level specifications that overwrite the user's actions.Melanie wrote:Hi, HG 1.5 doesn't address these concerns. Also, please remember that assets need to be freely available to all, else they can't be displayed. The observer gets a copy, too. Animations, textures, sounds, etc. need to be given to all observers. Melanie Mike Dickson wrote:Right. I think some of the use cases related to how content is shared have been glossed over. In a completely open model which is what has been discussed this is all pretty straightforward. But if I'm running an asset service (as part of a grid or separately) I might want to provide access controls as part of that service. The same with user services. I may have a trust relationship with one agent service and allow content to be transferred to agents that service represents. But for another agent service for which no such relationship exists I'd like to deny access to content. And even in the transfer case does the new user get a new copy or a reference. That concept isn't supported now but in a distributed grid its an important distinction. I might wish to know that copies of objects rezzed in a simulator always come from a specific asset service. In short I think how the security model works is way more important than a caching optimization being applied to a URI/URL. Its important to understand what levels of trust between services are supported and under what conditions an access is supported. As an Agent Service I may consider even the "Names" of my users to be confidential and only to be revealed to services for which a trust relationship exists. Mike On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 13:23 +0000, [email protected] wrote:Hi,As a content creator this concerns me. I believe if I license my content to an avatar, and then they go to another grid that any content pulled should be from the grid that I have the content loaded into. I think I should be in control of my content. I also think I should be able to block grids thatmy content is being accessed from. If you don't always maintain theoriginal content location there will be no control. If I give someone a copy of my content, then that is something else, they are now the owner of it and are free to do as they please with it, at least within any license I give them. But that is a legal stuff not a technically programmed one. Atleast I don't expect all situations to be programmed.Also when asset services start happening this will become more of an issue. I will have XRMarketplace.com live soon and plan to start selling content and provide that content as an asset server. How will I maintain any kind of control over the use of my content if people don't have to pull copiesfrom me?I also think, and haven't seen in the new hypergrid, if someone goes to a new grid I may not allow any of my content to go there unless that avatars gets an authorization from me which should be attached to his proxy profilefor access into my grid/asset server.The other thing to think about is how updates or corrections are propagated. SL has a terrible system of only supporting copies so any updates or copieshave to be sent to everyone. Seems content replacement needs to besupported and if content is all over the place this will get even crazier.Also to support dynamic content there needs to be a ways to refresh or update content. I suggest there needs to be an expiration date on thecontent just like how images and HTML pages on the web work so that cached content will know to pull a new copy. And if the expiration date is 0, atthe time it was pulled, it will always get refreshed.This is maybe should have its own discussion thread but seems to be part ofhow this is all going to work. M. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ai Austin Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 4:17 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Global identifiersmyticaldemina makes a lot of good points... one thing that could be problematic though relates to this comment...From: <[email protected]> ...I would suggest anyproxies would give the external system and identifier and not chain proxytoproxy unless there is a reason to do it, and the assets should be copied>from the original source.I agree with the first half... no chains, just hand over the external system "authority" and its given identifier pair for the identity involved.But I don't agree at all with the idea that you then have to get the asset from that original authority. The permissions could have changed, corruptions could have occurred or much more likely the authority simply will no longer be there. The asset "as is" (with its textures, scripted content and what not) should be provided to the destination location/grid if the object permissions allow it, with proper transfer of the permissions to next owner exactly as if an avatar to avatar transfer or rez in world took place on the local grid, without trying to reload the asset from an original source.. _______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev _______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev_______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev_______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev_______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
_______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
