Right; but we still have no way to tell who's a robot and who's not via federation.
I think we should keep things simple; and make it up to the robot which blips it responds to. -J On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 5:16 AM, Nathanael Abbotts <[email protected]> wrote: > If in the capabilities.xml of the robot (or equivalent), a robot could > specify if it wants to receive events triggered by robots for each event, > then this problem could be fixed. > For instance, a translation robot wouldn't want to receive blipsubmitted > events from other robots, but a table of contents robot definitely would. > If even more detail is needed or wanted, a robot could specify only to get > events from specific robots. Here is an extract from an example xml file: > > <w:capabilities> > <w:capability name="ANNOTATED_TEXT_CHANGED" context="ROOT,SELF" > filter="myrobot/annotationname" > robots="[email protected],[email protected]" /> > <w:capability name="BLIP_SUBMITTED" context="ROOT,SELF" robots="" /> > <w:capability name="WAVELET_SELF_ADDED" context="ROOT" robots="*" /> > </w:capabilities> > > Here, we have 3 events. The first one is annotated_text_changed, which is > used by the robot to track specific selections within a blip. The robot only > cares if a human, or one of 2 specific robots, changes this. > Next, blip_submitted. For this event, the robot is not interested in events > from other robots, so an empty string is provided. > Finally, wavelet_self_added. Because this robot happens to do an important > action which, if not done, will cause errors in future, the robot wants this > to happen regardless of who added it. > -- > Nathanael Abbotts > Email: [email protected] > Wave: [email protected] > Twitter: @natabbotts (http://twitter.com/natabbotts) > > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 07:32, Vega <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> If it is possible to handle bursts of traffic from arbitrary endpoints >> without falling over - it is great. But what about robot providers? >> Let's take for example a robot running on App Engine. It only takes a >> child to create a new wave, add there some text, then add 2 >> translating robots and let them translate each other until the wave >> explodes (or wave server somehow discovers abuses and... close the >> wave?) These robots will burn a lot of their quota. And it only takes >> a child to cause such abuse. I think translating robot will be >> interested to react only on human events, or on nonhuman events that >> it trusts. Failing to provide such mechanism will totally expose >> robots to abuse, imho. And wave server providers will also pay the >> price in form of handling spam traffic. >> >> On Nov 2, 6:50 am, Wim <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Why not? If the robots aim is best served by responding to all >> > messages then why shouldn't it respond to all messages? Imagine a >> > translation bot that embeds replies in a blip translating that blip >> > into selected languages, why should other robots blips be ignored by >> > this bot? >> > >> > It should be up to the robot to determine what messages it is >> > interested in, first case for almost all robots would be ignoring >> > messages from itself. After that it would have to filter based on >> > what it is setup to do; whether that is checking the content to >> > determine if its control commands are there, or if the author matches >> > the author that added it to the conversation, or .... This is all >> > part of the logic of the robot based off how it is to behave. >> > >> > Allowing robots to respond to other robots definitely does have the >> > problem of infinite recursion. Something as simple as two echoey >> > robots in the same wave from different servers could cause this >> > problem, or two spell checking robots battling over whether it is >> > spelt "color" or "colour". As Alex said this issue should be dealt >> > with at the server level, maybe servers should have some method to >> > provide both clients and robots with a 'warning' that they are close >> > to being cutoff and then remove them from the wave if they continue >> > spamming it. >> > >> > This problem should also be dealt with at the robot level as well, >> > something like a spell checking robot should be storing a list of >> > words it has changed in a private wavelet and not trying to change a >> > word a second time, e.g. if you are commenting on the "Color" class of >> > some code and the spell checker changes it to "Colour" you should be >> > able to change it back and the spell checker should ignore the word. >> > >> > On Nov 2, 3:27 pm, "Gamer_Z." <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > IMHO this should not be a necessary part of the protocol. Robots >> > > should not be programmed to respond to every message. Doing that >> > > would not have any benefit to the developer because users would very >> > > quickly get annoyed with them. >> > >> > > On Nov 1, 10:19 pm, Alex North <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > > In fact, it was an architectural flaw in Google Wave that robots >> > > > could not >> > > > talk to each other. It was never desired behaviour. Our vision was >> > > > that >> > > > robots could do "anything a human can do". Of course didn't quite >> > > > get there, >> > > > but were working towards it. >> > >> > > > In the current federation protocol there is no means to identify a >> > > > participant as being automated or not. Even if there were, that >> > > > would >> > > > require trusting arbitrary federated wave servers to correctly >> > > > identify >> > > > their participants. Apart from there being many valid reasons that >> > > > the >> > > > distinction is unnecessary, this would be somewhat like trusting >> > > > mail >> > > > servers not to send spam. Protection against abuse needs to be done >> > > > elsewhere, possibly imperfectly. >> > >> > > > There is some concern that two talking robots could enter an >> > > > infinite loop. >> > > > I'm not convinced that this is something we need to design the >> > > > protocol to >> > > > protect against. We should instead implement wave servers such that >> > > > they can >> > > > handle bursts of traffic from arbitrary endpoints without falling >> > > > over, >> > > > perhaps with some kind of throttle. If they detect that some >> > > > (possibly >> > > > federated) participant or server is abusive, it's the receiving >> > > > server's >> > > > call whether to cut them off. No loop is infinite because waves have >> > > > size >> > > > limits: right now there is a size limit built right into the >> > > > protocol, but >> > > > even if there wasn't there would be an effective (if unpredictable) >> > > > size >> > > > limit when some server was no longer able to hold the wave in >> > > > memory. Again, >> > > > a robust server should be able to evict such a wave without going >> > > > down in >> > > > flames. >> > >> > > > There are some legitimate user experience reasons that it would be >> > > > useful to >> > > > identify robots on some kind of best effort basis. Wave providers >> > > > may wish >> > > > to provide a bunch of standard robots or something, and display some >> > > > indication to their users of the automated nature of these >> > > > participants to >> > > > set the right expectations. But that could only ever be a best >> > > > effort >> > > > service - they couldn't reliably classify arbitrary participants as >> > > > automated or not. I'm ignoring these use cases for now - such a >> > > > mechanism >> > > > doesn't need to go into the core protocol but would appear in a >> > > > server's >> > > > profile implementation. >> > >> > > > My 2 cents (ok, maybe a bit more than than) >> > > > Alex >> > >> > > > On 2 November 2010 05:05, Vega <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > > > I personally think that the solution should be like this: >> > >> > > > > 1) Wave servers should be able to mark users as humans and non >> > > > > humans >> > > > > 2) The deltas exchanged by Wave servers should include for each >> > > > > participant also its type human/nonhuman >> > > > > 3)Robots should be allowed to receive only events caused by >> > > > > humans, >> > > > > unless >> > > > > 4)Robot(A) specified in its capabilities that it is interested to >> > > > > receive events from other robot (B), and robot (B) specified in >> > > > > its >> > > > > capabilities that it is interested to send events to (A) >> > >> > > > > Of course such solution will not prevent DOS attacks, but at least >> > > > > it >> > > > > will totally prevent scenarios where 2 robots enter infinite loop >> > > > > due >> > > > > to bad design or bug. >> > >> > > > > On Nov 1, 7:58 pm, Vega <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > > Wave allows robots to be first order participants in the waves. >> > > > > > This a >> > > > > > really great feature with huge potential, however, it also might >> > > > > > lead >> > > > > > to unintentional infinite loops causes by robots responding to >> > > > > > events >> > > > > > caused by other robots. Google Wave implementation attempted to >> > > > > > solve >> > > > > > this issue by preventing from robots to receive non human >> > > > > > events. It >> > > > > > seems that this solution was effective enough in the Google Wave >> > > > > > implementation. >> > > > > > However, for a federated system, such as Wave in a Box - such >> > > > > > solution >> > > > > > might not be possible even in principle, as there's no way to >> > > > > > track >> > > > > > whether participant from other federated served is human or >> > > > > > robot. >> > > > > > Moreover, Google Wave's solution is too restrictive as it makes >> > > > > > robot- >> > > > > > robot communication nearly impossible to implement and thus >> > > > > > limits the >> > > > > > robot functionality. >> > > > > > Let us discuss the issue and see what could be possible solution >> > > > > > viable for Wave in a Box. >> > > > > > Please also take a look at [0]. >> > >> > > > > > [0]http://code.google.com/p/wave-protocol/issues/list?cursor=131 >> > >> > > > > -- >> > > > > 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%2bunsubscr...@goog >> > > > > legroups.com> >> > > > > . >> > > > > 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. >> > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
