Re: [Unity-irc3] Banning from the entire network, part two

[Jan Krueger]

"C.W.L. Hoogenboezem" <address@hidden> wrote on 2003-04-10 08:41:
> where servers can have levels from 0 to 255? I think this idea is pretty
> good - it's quite useful in a lot of things, and takes away manual
> election of various aspects of an IRC network, like networkwide bans.
In fact, (partially) network-wide banning is the only thing I intend to use
levels for (apart from channel access levels, but that's a different story).

If you can see any other thing those levels might be good for (I don't really
want remote kills, they're utterly useless and abusive), let me know.

> So we're talking about two different levels; userlevels (more like
> operlevels), and serverlevels. I assume we take 8 bits for both,
> allowing us to chose 255 possible levels. What I'm concerned about
> however, is that the rights corresponding to these levels either should
> be hardcoded into the ircd (or defined with a shellscript to inject them
> into the Makefile), or are they defined in the ircd.conf? I don't think
> userlevels<->userrights will be a problem to define. Jast, you were
> thinking to define these serverrights onto an sauth server?
As to the current non-final design, those levels are ONLY used by the
blacklist. I've already said that but well, you don't seem to have noticed it.
;)
Also, since the new network will be world-wide and will include all servers
and lots of different visions and attitudes of different admins, it would be
less than satisfying if everyone would be bound to the levels some servers
were assigned.
Instead, every server can open up a group on a blacklist server. It will then
achieve all rights to this group. For example, when another server joins the
group, it can assign it a level (new servers should initially be given level
0 so that the new servers can't participate in enforcing bans in that group).
If it only trusts a specific oper on a server it can also give a level to that
oper only or give them a higher level than their server (for example, server
gets level 10 so that all opers can set at most level 10 bans but the
specific oper is a nice, responsible person and is allowed level 50 bans).
By adding the concept of groups, we get parts of the "domain" or "sub-network"
feeling back, but only when it comes to bans. Every group can have its own
policies about bans and no server is required to enforce global bans - after
all, it can join an arbitrary number of groups, which could as well be no
groups at all.

> Jast, I don't know if you are aware of the following, but RFC's should
> initially be presented as Internet-drafts:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt
That's not true. If RFCs have nothing to do with the IETF, are not related to
an existing standards track RFC and don't want to become a standards track
RFC, they can be submitted directly. And as I understand it, standards track
protocols have to be protocols that help keeping the intarweb alive or
something like that.

regards,
Jan

pgpBEaXQqEA64.pgp
Description: PGP signature