With my system, it is up to the robot. The robot can choose if it wants events from robots or not. Unless there is a way for servers to tell each other what is and isn't a robot (even if it requires the server that doesn't know explicitly asking), then it isn't truly up to the robot, as it won't know. -- Nathanael Abbotts
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 21:55, Gamer_Z. <[email protected]> wrote: > But would it not be easy for a server to tell another server that a > given participant is a human when it is actually a robot. I still > agree with Joseph and think this should be up to the robot. A well- > coded 'bot should be programmed to avoid infinite loops. > > Also, regarding your example of a translation 'bot, we found out with > Aunt Rosie that a robot that replies with translations gets annoying > quickly, so I doubt that someone would repeat it. Better to do it > Rosy-style where the client can be set to show translations in-blip if > the user requests it. And if there were a standard "translation" > annotation, then robots could be set to look for it so they know > whether or not to translate a given blip. > > On Nov 2, 5:49 pm, Nathanael Abbotts <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is there no way that it could be possible for a server to identify > someone > > as a robot? > > Surely if we had profile operations, then it could be done. Not sure > though > > - this solution would only work if we have a rusty-esque robot proxy, in > > which case the rusty agent could decide to withhold an event based on the > > capabilities, if only for robots that connect to that particular server > (via > > rusty), and not for robots connected to other servers. > > -- > > Nathanael Abbotts > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 21:44, Joseph Gentle <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > > -- > 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.
