Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Popular
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

NodeBB-ActivityPub Bridge Test Instance

  1. Home
  2. Categories
  3. Uncategorized
  4. Concept for discussion: Replacing HTTP Signatures with Bearer Tokens for ActivityPub Federation

Concept for discussion: Replacing HTTP Signatures with Bearer Tokens for ActivityPub Federation

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
activitypubfederation
18 Posts 4 Posters 7 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • smallcircles@social.coopS smallcircles@social.coop

    @kopper @hazelnoot

    Not knowledgeable enough on the subject, but saw @cwebber a couple of times advising UCAN as currently the best choice in anticipation of more of the OCapN efforts to become available. If we start looking on very different approaches, I wonder how - if at all - UCAN fits in, and whether someone is already exploring that direction.

    Also I'd be in favor of going a direction that brings fediverse closer to actor model again, rather than further away.

    https://ucan.xyz

    kopper@not-brain.d.on-t.workK This user is from outside of this forum
    kopper@not-brain.d.on-t.workK This user is from outside of this forum
    kopper@not-brain.d.on-t.work
    wrote last edited by
    #7
    @smallcircles @hazelnoot @cwebber I'm worried that capabilities in their entirety are an extremely dramatic break from current fedi, which makes it pretty much impossible to gain any adoption without a complete backwards-incompatible break that somehow all software are onboard with.

    These tokens are a bit easier to implement which I would imagine would help adoption, but I'm still doubtful it will happen as it would also be a (smaller) backwards compatibility break.

    For comparison, our Mastodon overlords seem to be doubling down on HTTP signatures though:
    github.com/mastodon/mastodon/pull/34814
    smallcircles@social.coopS 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • kopper@not-brain.d.on-t.workK kopper@not-brain.d.on-t.work
      @smallcircles @hazelnoot @cwebber I'm worried that capabilities in their entirety are an extremely dramatic break from current fedi, which makes it pretty much impossible to gain any adoption without a complete backwards-incompatible break that somehow all software are onboard with.

      These tokens are a bit easier to implement which I would imagine would help adoption, but I'm still doubtful it will happen as it would also be a (smaller) backwards compatibility break.

      For comparison, our Mastodon overlords seem to be doubling down on HTTP signatures though:
      github.com/mastodon/mastodon/pull/34814
      smallcircles@social.coopS This user is from outside of this forum
      smallcircles@social.coopS This user is from outside of this forum
      smallcircles@social.coop
      wrote last edited by
      #8

      @kopper @hazelnoot @cwebber

      I wonder at what cost backwards-compatibility should for always be retained, and what kind of fediverse that'll give us in the future.

      The other day I had a good brainstorm with @trwnh and @steve about an AP-compliant protocol extension returning to the promise of the conceptual architecture. Actor model + service-orientation.

      Breaking compat with masto-flavored fedi and abstractions introduced but not part of the spec. No sharedInbox, etc.

      Link Preview Image
      Protosocial ActivityPub protocol

      Protosocial ActivityPub v1.0.0 Pro-social protocol suite for the social web, based on ActivityPub Protosocial ActivityPub protocol is an extension of W3C ActivityPub that focuses on ease of use for the developm…

      favicon

      Discuss Social Coding (discuss.coding.social)

      smallcircles@social.coopS 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • smallcircles@social.coopS smallcircles@social.coop

        @kopper @hazelnoot @cwebber

        I wonder at what cost backwards-compatibility should for always be retained, and what kind of fediverse that'll give us in the future.

        The other day I had a good brainstorm with @trwnh and @steve about an AP-compliant protocol extension returning to the promise of the conceptual architecture. Actor model + service-orientation.

        Breaking compat with masto-flavored fedi and abstractions introduced but not part of the spec. No sharedInbox, etc.

        Link Preview Image
        Protosocial ActivityPub protocol

        Protosocial ActivityPub v1.0.0 Pro-social protocol suite for the social web, based on ActivityPub Protosocial ActivityPub protocol is an extension of W3C ActivityPub that focuses on ease of use for the developm…

        favicon

        Discuss Social Coding (discuss.coding.social)

        smallcircles@social.coopS This user is from outside of this forum
        smallcircles@social.coopS This user is from outside of this forum
        smallcircles@social.coop
        wrote last edited by
        #9

        @kopper @hazelnoot @cwebber @trwnh @steve

        You are most welcome to join the Groundwork labs matrix chatroom, which is themed to discussing how we can "lay the groundwork", the foundational technology base, for the next-gen social web.

        You're invited to talk on Matrix

        You're invited to talk on Matrix

        favicon

        (matrix.to)

        hazelnoot@enby.lifeH 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • smallcircles@social.coopS smallcircles@social.coop

          @kopper @hazelnoot @cwebber @trwnh @steve

          You are most welcome to join the Groundwork labs matrix chatroom, which is themed to discussing how we can "lay the groundwork", the foundational technology base, for the next-gen social web.

          You're invited to talk on Matrix

          You're invited to talk on Matrix

          favicon

          (matrix.to)

          hazelnoot@enby.lifeH This user is from outside of this forum
          hazelnoot@enby.lifeH This user is from outside of this forum
          hazelnoot@enby.life
          wrote last edited by
          #10

          @smallcircles@social.coop @kopper@not-brain.d.on-t.work @cwebber@social.coop @trwnh@mastodon.social @steve@social.technoetic.com I appreciate the invite, but I get the sense that I would be ideologically at odds with everyone else ​​

          hazelnoot@enby.lifeH 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • hazelnoot@enby.lifeH hazelnoot@enby.life

            @smallcircles@social.coop @kopper@not-brain.d.on-t.work @cwebber@social.coop @trwnh@mastodon.social @steve@social.technoetic.com I appreciate the invite, but I get the sense that I would be ideologically at odds with everyone else ​​

            hazelnoot@enby.lifeH This user is from outside of this forum
            hazelnoot@enby.lifeH This user is from outside of this forum
            hazelnoot@enby.life
            wrote last edited by
            #11

            @trwnh@mastodon.social @steve@social.technoetic.com @smallcircles@social.coop @cwebber@social.coop @kopper@not-brain.d.on-t.work as an example, this:

            an AP-compliant protocol extension returning to the promise of the conceptual architecture. Actor model + service-orientation.

            Breaking compat with masto-flavored fedi and abstractions introduced but not part of the spec. No sharedInbox, etc.
            Is pretty much the opposite of where I think we should go. Not presuming to know more than actual AP designers, but as someone who builds and operates AP platforms my experience points towards instance-first being a more suitable design if federation is actually the goal. (as opposed to "true" decentralization like Nostr).

            trwnh@mastodon.socialT 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • hazelnoot@enby.lifeH hazelnoot@enby.life

              @trwnh@mastodon.social @steve@social.technoetic.com @smallcircles@social.coop @cwebber@social.coop @kopper@not-brain.d.on-t.work as an example, this:

              an AP-compliant protocol extension returning to the promise of the conceptual architecture. Actor model + service-orientation.

              Breaking compat with masto-flavored fedi and abstractions introduced but not part of the spec. No sharedInbox, etc.
              Is pretty much the opposite of where I think we should go. Not presuming to know more than actual AP designers, but as someone who builds and operates AP platforms my experience points towards instance-first being a more suitable design if federation is actually the goal. (as opposed to "true" decentralization like Nostr).

              trwnh@mastodon.socialT This user is from outside of this forum
              trwnh@mastodon.socialT This user is from outside of this forum
              trwnh@mastodon.social
              wrote last edited by
              #12

              @hazelnoot @steve @smallcircles @cwebber @kopper

              > as someone who builds and operates [...] platforms

              yeah, this is probably the fundamental distinction. anyone is free to agree or disagree with anything, but my personal direction is to do away with siloed platforms and make it easier to maintain personal websites. it's less about federating platforms and more about making the web be the platform. current fedi is more syndication than federation

              hazelnoot@enby.lifeH 1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • trwnh@mastodon.socialT trwnh@mastodon.social

                @hazelnoot @steve @smallcircles @cwebber @kopper

                > as someone who builds and operates [...] platforms

                yeah, this is probably the fundamental distinction. anyone is free to agree or disagree with anything, but my personal direction is to do away with siloed platforms and make it easier to maintain personal websites. it's less about federating platforms and more about making the web be the platform. current fedi is more syndication than federation

                hazelnoot@enby.lifeH This user is from outside of this forum
                hazelnoot@enby.lifeH This user is from outside of this forum
                hazelnoot@enby.life
                wrote last edited by
                #13

                @trwnh@mastodon.social @steve@social.technoetic.com @smallcircles@social.coop @cwebber@social.coop @kopper@not-brain.d.on-t.work that divide explains a lot, actually. The difference in goals might be causing much of the bikeshedding and conflict that tends to stall major changes to AP. Not sure what to do about that now, though

                trwnh@mastodon.socialT 1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • hazelnoot@enby.lifeH hazelnoot@enby.life

                  @trwnh@mastodon.social @steve@social.technoetic.com @smallcircles@social.coop @cwebber@social.coop @kopper@not-brain.d.on-t.work that divide explains a lot, actually. The difference in goals might be causing much of the bikeshedding and conflict that tends to stall major changes to AP. Not sure what to do about that now, though

                  trwnh@mastodon.socialT This user is from outside of this forum
                  trwnh@mastodon.socialT This user is from outside of this forum
                  trwnh@mastodon.social
                  wrote last edited by
                  #14

                  @hazelnoot @kopper if i had to guess at what's leading to stalling, it's probably more that some aspects of the specs were not fully developed in time, and fedi made some choices based on incomplete guidance that resulted in tech debt, and now some factions want to fix the problems, while other factions want to ratify the problems. i guess you could chalk this up to "difference in goals" but there's also a certain amount of resistance to paying that tech debt.

                  hazelnoot@enby.lifeH 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • trwnh@mastodon.socialT trwnh@mastodon.social

                    @hazelnoot @kopper if i had to guess at what's leading to stalling, it's probably more that some aspects of the specs were not fully developed in time, and fedi made some choices based on incomplete guidance that resulted in tech debt, and now some factions want to fix the problems, while other factions want to ratify the problems. i guess you could chalk this up to "difference in goals" but there's also a certain amount of resistance to paying that tech debt.

                    hazelnoot@enby.lifeH This user is from outside of this forum
                    hazelnoot@enby.lifeH This user is from outside of this forum
                    hazelnoot@enby.life
                    wrote last edited by
                    #15

                    @trwnh@mastodon.social @kopper@not-brain.d.on-t.work that makes sense. I'm honestly conflicted on that, since I'm generally in favor of fixing tech debt but this situation carries a strong risk of fracturing the network. Fedi admins are kindof infamously bad at updating...

                    hazelnoot@enby.lifeH 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • hazelnoot@enby.lifeH hazelnoot@enby.life

                      @trwnh@mastodon.social @kopper@not-brain.d.on-t.work that makes sense. I'm honestly conflicted on that, since I'm generally in favor of fixing tech debt but this situation carries a strong risk of fracturing the network. Fedi admins are kindof infamously bad at updating...

                      hazelnoot@enby.lifeH This user is from outside of this forum
                      hazelnoot@enby.lifeH This user is from outside of this forum
                      hazelnoot@enby.life
                      wrote last edited by
                      #16

                      @trwnh@mastodon.social @kopper@not-brain.d.on-t.work like, people still use FireFish even though it has known unfixed vulnerabilities and clear migration path to supported alternatives.

                      trwnh@mastodon.socialT 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • hazelnoot@enby.lifeH hazelnoot@enby.life

                        @trwnh@mastodon.social @kopper@not-brain.d.on-t.work like, people still use FireFish even though it has known unfixed vulnerabilities and clear migration path to supported alternatives.

                        trwnh@mastodon.socialT This user is from outside of this forum
                        trwnh@mastodon.socialT This user is from outside of this forum
                        trwnh@mastodon.social
                        wrote last edited by
                        #17

                        @hazelnoot @kopper yeah, you'd need buy-in from existing softwares to implement some kind of transition period, but outside of mastodon recently i don't think anyone wants to charge ahead with new stuff. but mastodon doesnt want the responsibility of stewarding their own protocol, so it's convenient to paint it as a common approach to avoid concerns of "mastodon EEE" or whatever people are going to say when any attempt at progress is led by mastodon

                        trwnh@mastodon.socialT 1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • trwnh@mastodon.socialT trwnh@mastodon.social

                          @hazelnoot @kopper yeah, you'd need buy-in from existing softwares to implement some kind of transition period, but outside of mastodon recently i don't think anyone wants to charge ahead with new stuff. but mastodon doesnt want the responsibility of stewarding their own protocol, so it's convenient to paint it as a common approach to avoid concerns of "mastodon EEE" or whatever people are going to say when any attempt at progress is led by mastodon

                          trwnh@mastodon.socialT This user is from outside of this forum
                          trwnh@mastodon.socialT This user is from outside of this forum
                          trwnh@mastodon.social
                          wrote last edited by
                          #18

                          @hazelnoot @kopper it feels like mastodon has recently become a bit more comfy with "next masto version supports consuming this new thing, next+1 masto version supports producing this thing" and letting everyone else figure out their own plans, so it depends on whether everyone else follows along or not (assuming they want masto compat)

                          (as someone who doesn't want masto compat, i'm more willing to make breaking changes for my personal website if it makes sense to do so)

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          Reply
                          • Reply as topic
                          Log in to reply
                          • Oldest to Newest
                          • Newest to Oldest
                          • Most Votes


                          • Login

                          • Login or register to search.
                          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
                          • First post
                            Last post
                          0
                          • Categories
                          • Recent
                          • Popular