Before creating and publishing FEDERATION.md for #ktistec I wanted to understand what existing practice looked like across the Fediverse.
-
Before creating and publishing
FEDERATION.mdfor #ktistec I wanted to understand what existing practice looked like across the Fediverse.FEP-67ff describes the requirements of the
FEDERATION.mdfile in loose terms and provides a non-normative template. I scraped the URLs ofFEDERATION.mdfiles from FEP-67ff itself and confirmed I could fetch them. The FEP listed 30 accessible projects (31 total, but one project—FIRM—does not appear to exist).If a file had a section with the heading "Supported FEPs" per the non-normative template, I only looked there for supported FEPs. Otherwise I scanned the entire document.
Implemented FEPs, ranked by the number of implementations that attest support, are:
FEP Name # ---- --------------------------------------------------------- -- 67ff FEDERATION.md 18 f1d5 NodeInfo in Fediverse Software 16 8b32 Object Integrity Proofs 7 044f Consent-respecting quote posts 7 2677 Identifying the Application Actor 7 e232 Object Links 6 1b12 Group federation 6 3b86 Activity Intents 6 521a Representing actor's public keys 5 2c59 Discovery of a Webfinger address from an ActivityPub actor 5 7888 Demystifying the context property 5 5feb Search indexing consent for actors 5 4adb Dereferencing identifiers with webfinger 4 d556 Server-Level Actor Discovery Using WebFinger 4 fb2a Actor metadata 4 ef61 Portable Objects 4 8fcf Followers collection synchronization across servers 4 844e Capability discovery 4 7628 Move actor 3 61cf The OpenWebAuth Protocol 3 c390 Identity Proofs 3 400e Publicly-appendable ActivityPub collections 3 c0e0 Emoji reactions 3 0151 NodeInfo in Fediverse Software (2025 edition) 3 fffd Proxy Objects 2 f228 Backfilling conversations 2 fe34 Origin-based security model 2 eb48 Hashtags 2 171b Conversation Containers 2 a5c5 Web Syndication Methods 2
There are obvious flaws in the methodology. Or maybe in the data. Only 18 out of the 30 projects I could access had a FEDERATION.md that attested FEDERATION.md support. Only 19 mentioned "FEDERATION.md". Only 21 mentioned "67ff". The remaining projects clearly did support FEP-67ff—the file itself was evidence. (
FEDERATION.mdis not meant to be machine readable—there's an issue about that).It was more difficult to rank implemented federation protocols. I extracted keywords from documents with a "Supported federation protocols and standards" section and created a dictionary of terms. If a file had a section with the heading "Supported federation protocols and standards", I only looked there. Otherwise I scanned the entire document.
Feature # ---------------- -- activitypub 26 webfinger 24 http_signatures 21 nodeinfo 19 json_ld 2 ld_signatures 2 ostatus 2 authorized_fetch 1 atproto 1
If time allows, I'm going to try to rank these documents by "utility", though I haven't yet determined the exact metric. These documents clearly provide valuable information, but their lack of standardization makes them harder to analyze systematically.
-
T tag-activitypub@relay.fedi.buzz shared this topic
-
Before creating and publishing
FEDERATION.mdfor #ktistec I wanted to understand what existing practice looked like across the Fediverse.FEP-67ff describes the requirements of the
FEDERATION.mdfile in loose terms and provides a non-normative template. I scraped the URLs ofFEDERATION.mdfiles from FEP-67ff itself and confirmed I could fetch them. The FEP listed 30 accessible projects (31 total, but one project—FIRM—does not appear to exist).If a file had a section with the heading "Supported FEPs" per the non-normative template, I only looked there for supported FEPs. Otherwise I scanned the entire document.
Implemented FEPs, ranked by the number of implementations that attest support, are:
FEP Name # ---- --------------------------------------------------------- -- 67ff FEDERATION.md 18 f1d5 NodeInfo in Fediverse Software 16 8b32 Object Integrity Proofs 7 044f Consent-respecting quote posts 7 2677 Identifying the Application Actor 7 e232 Object Links 6 1b12 Group federation 6 3b86 Activity Intents 6 521a Representing actor's public keys 5 2c59 Discovery of a Webfinger address from an ActivityPub actor 5 7888 Demystifying the context property 5 5feb Search indexing consent for actors 5 4adb Dereferencing identifiers with webfinger 4 d556 Server-Level Actor Discovery Using WebFinger 4 fb2a Actor metadata 4 ef61 Portable Objects 4 8fcf Followers collection synchronization across servers 4 844e Capability discovery 4 7628 Move actor 3 61cf The OpenWebAuth Protocol 3 c390 Identity Proofs 3 400e Publicly-appendable ActivityPub collections 3 c0e0 Emoji reactions 3 0151 NodeInfo in Fediverse Software (2025 edition) 3 fffd Proxy Objects 2 f228 Backfilling conversations 2 fe34 Origin-based security model 2 eb48 Hashtags 2 171b Conversation Containers 2 a5c5 Web Syndication Methods 2
There are obvious flaws in the methodology. Or maybe in the data. Only 18 out of the 30 projects I could access had a FEDERATION.md that attested FEDERATION.md support. Only 19 mentioned "FEDERATION.md". Only 21 mentioned "67ff". The remaining projects clearly did support FEP-67ff—the file itself was evidence. (
FEDERATION.mdis not meant to be machine readable—there's an issue about that).It was more difficult to rank implemented federation protocols. I extracted keywords from documents with a "Supported federation protocols and standards" section and created a dictionary of terms. If a file had a section with the heading "Supported federation protocols and standards", I only looked there. Otherwise I scanned the entire document.
Feature # ---------------- -- activitypub 26 webfinger 24 http_signatures 21 nodeinfo 19 json_ld 2 ld_signatures 2 ostatus 2 authorized_fetch 1 atproto 1
If time allows, I'm going to try to rank these documents by "utility", though I haven't yet determined the exact metric. These documents clearly provide valuable information, but their lack of standardization makes them harder to analyze systematically.
@toddsundsted very nice work! This is valuable information. #ActivityPub #FEP
-
@toddsundsted very nice work! This is valuable information. #ActivityPub #FEP
Btw. #GrassrootsStandards and standardization processes (such as the #FEP process) are a topic of Social coding commons and Social experience design, and we have a multi-author blog at https://coding.social ..
If you wish you might publish these results there as a report to spread about.
-
Before creating and publishing
FEDERATION.mdfor #ktistec I wanted to understand what existing practice looked like across the Fediverse.FEP-67ff describes the requirements of the
FEDERATION.mdfile in loose terms and provides a non-normative template. I scraped the URLs ofFEDERATION.mdfiles from FEP-67ff itself and confirmed I could fetch them. The FEP listed 30 accessible projects (31 total, but one project—FIRM—does not appear to exist).If a file had a section with the heading "Supported FEPs" per the non-normative template, I only looked there for supported FEPs. Otherwise I scanned the entire document.
Implemented FEPs, ranked by the number of implementations that attest support, are:
FEP Name # ---- --------------------------------------------------------- -- 67ff FEDERATION.md 18 f1d5 NodeInfo in Fediverse Software 16 8b32 Object Integrity Proofs 7 044f Consent-respecting quote posts 7 2677 Identifying the Application Actor 7 e232 Object Links 6 1b12 Group federation 6 3b86 Activity Intents 6 521a Representing actor's public keys 5 2c59 Discovery of a Webfinger address from an ActivityPub actor 5 7888 Demystifying the context property 5 5feb Search indexing consent for actors 5 4adb Dereferencing identifiers with webfinger 4 d556 Server-Level Actor Discovery Using WebFinger 4 fb2a Actor metadata 4 ef61 Portable Objects 4 8fcf Followers collection synchronization across servers 4 844e Capability discovery 4 7628 Move actor 3 61cf The OpenWebAuth Protocol 3 c390 Identity Proofs 3 400e Publicly-appendable ActivityPub collections 3 c0e0 Emoji reactions 3 0151 NodeInfo in Fediverse Software (2025 edition) 3 fffd Proxy Objects 2 f228 Backfilling conversations 2 fe34 Origin-based security model 2 eb48 Hashtags 2 171b Conversation Containers 2 a5c5 Web Syndication Methods 2
There are obvious flaws in the methodology. Or maybe in the data. Only 18 out of the 30 projects I could access had a FEDERATION.md that attested FEDERATION.md support. Only 19 mentioned "FEDERATION.md". Only 21 mentioned "67ff". The remaining projects clearly did support FEP-67ff—the file itself was evidence. (
FEDERATION.mdis not meant to be machine readable—there's an issue about that).It was more difficult to rank implemented federation protocols. I extracted keywords from documents with a "Supported federation protocols and standards" section and created a dictionary of terms. If a file had a section with the heading "Supported federation protocols and standards", I only looked there. Otherwise I scanned the entire document.
Feature # ---------------- -- activitypub 26 webfinger 24 http_signatures 21 nodeinfo 19 json_ld 2 ld_signatures 2 ostatus 2 authorized_fetch 1 atproto 1
If time allows, I'm going to try to rank these documents by "utility", though I haven't yet determined the exact metric. These documents clearly provide valuable information, but their lack of standardization makes them harder to analyze systematically.
@toddsundsted Information about implementations is also present in FEPs, but it is similarly incomplete.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login