Talk:LSL Protocol/Restrained Love Open Relay Group/key
Should the key be deleted/inactivated after a take over? If not, there is the possibility for the session to be stolen another time, by replaying the message. If it is, then, it should be explicitly said in the spec!
On the other hand, it would be interesting if the session key completely superseded the controller key. Then there would be the possibility for a bunch of controllers to share a session (one being able to change restriction from another, with no real takeover/handover). Of course we would want to add some security so that only authorized device could join the session (combining with !x-channel could help some). Maybe also we would want to make a difference between session key and session password. --Satomi Ahn 00:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The key is not deleted or inactivated after a takeover; if the session was negociated with !x-channel on a private communication channel, the key is private. Of course, after a takeover, the controller can renegociate a new key by sending a new !x-key command: the new key must supersede the old one. --Dahlia Orfan 20:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Version 003
I rewrote some aspects of the specification. LSL_Protocol/Restrained_Love_Open_Relay_Group/key/003_draft
Most notably !x-nopingclear became !x-noping/clear and I added requirements concerning privacy (and llRegionSayTo). Consistently, refrences to !x-channel were removed.
Also I removed the paragraph about !x-email, since I am also modifying this one to be have more consistently with over x-tensions such as key and forward.
I did not understand the paragraph about reseat too... So I removed it :P. In my understanding, resitting has always been the responsibility of the relay.
Any comment?
Other topic: ok, I undertand that !x-noping and !x-key are to be considered like restricting, in the sense they require authorization from the wearer. But a nuance should be made here. To me there are "transient" and "persistant" restricting commands.
Both transient and persistant would live through till the end of the session, but transient ones would not hold the gate open (keep the session open) if no truly persistant restricting command was also currently living. They would just vanish and close the session after some timeout.
But I digress. These last paragraphs would rather concern the core requirements.
--Satomi Ahn 08:55, 9 June 2011 (PDT)