I think TP2 could be made to work if federation where separated into two security domains (trusted and non-trusted). Federation between severs that trust each other and have agreed to apply access control policy consistently could allow TP2. But federation between non trusted servers would need to disallow TP2.
-Tad On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Torben Weis <[email protected]> wrote: > Tad, I fully agree. > > TP2 leads us to the area of peer-to-peer. My team at University has spent > the last three years on solving some security problems that arise when > running an MMOG like WoW on a peer-to-peer system without any central > authority. The algorithms are very complex and many of them eat up a decent > amount of bandwidth. It will take some additional research years to reach a > level of trust comparable to that of a centralized MMOG. > > Based on this experience, I cannot imagine that Wave (which is not > research, but a productive system) will be ported to TP2. However, from a > scientific point of view it might be interesting to explore the potential > benefits of a TP2-based wave. > > Greetings > Torben > > 2010/2/25 Tad Glines <[email protected]> > >> There's been some discussion about wave and how things would be much >> better if wave supported TP2. >> >> Currently all deltas must be sent to the wavelet host, or owner, for >> transformation before the delta can be propagated to all other wavelet >> readers. This means that Wave doesn't support the OT property TP2. If wave >> supported TP2, then there would be no need for a wavelet "owner" and each >> server could arrive at the consistent wavelet state independent of each >> other. Put another way: without TP2, the wavelet "owner" is the single point >> of failure. With TP2, there is no single point of failure, and no "owner". >> And there's the problem, no owner means no control. >> >> In order for wave to be successful there needs to be a wavelet "owner". >> The "owner" can enforce schemas and enforce access control policies. If wave >> supported TP2, then it would be impossible for a server to prevent a another >> server from writing to the wavelet. One could expect all the servers to >> "play nice together" but there is no way to explicitly enforce access >> control policies in a TP2 environment when the servers are owned and >> operated by separate entities. >> >> -Tad >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Wave Protocol" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]<wave-protocol%[email protected]> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. >> > > > > -- > --------------------------- > Prof. Torben Weis > Universitaet Duisburg-Essen > [email protected] > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Wave Protocol" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<wave-protocol%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
