#social 2018-06-26
2018-06-26 UTC
# 
vasilakisfil I am trying to send a toot using https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2018/06/how-to-implement-a-basic-activitypub-server/ to the author, but although I have setup https://vasilakisfil.social/actor and https://vasilakisfil.social/.well-known/webfinger?resource=acct:vasilakisfil@vasilakisfil.social correctly (and I can verify those from mastadon.social), when I create the activity by POSTing to the inbox I get a 401 without any body
# vasilakisfil any ideas would be helpful
# vasilakisfil here are the http logs https://gist.github.com/vasilakisfil/58681028f7c7daedd30246cf676682a9 for my POST request in case it helps
# vasilakisfil I think I ll have to deploy a mastodon instance and debug it, very weird that there is no error message
tantek joined the channel
# fr33domlover3 vasilakisfil, you could go to mastodon source too and see the flow. or ask some admin to check logs etc. for you
# fr33domlover3 vasilakisfil, did you get the http signature right
# vasilakisfil I went through the source code, I couldn't figure out but probably it's the signature indeed
# vasilakisfil not sure why though, I tried to set it up as in the blogpost
# vasilakisfil the public/private key used for the signature, are not related with the TLS certificates, right ?
# vasilakisfil I went through the code, and the only way to get 401 is when having invalid signature. However from the source code I couldn't figure out when this happens because in all cases you get some representative message
# vasilakisfil I get nothing
# fr33domlover3 Gargron, ^
# dansup vasilakisfil: I think you are missing some fields
# vasilakisfil ok, I ll take a second look tmr, going to sleep now
# 
jaywink[m] vasilakisfil: re "Given that activitypub dictates username@instance.name, how do you suggest formating my webfinger ?"
# jaywink[m] ActivityPub doesn't actually have a concept of "username@instance.name". This is just purely Mastodon implementation detail not in AP spec. AP also doesn't require webfinger - again only related to Mastodon.
# jaywink[m] Now, of course, if you want to federate with Mastodon, you probably need to do some extra work to be compatible by implementing webfinger. But those parts are not a part of AP :)
# dansup ^
# dansup jaywink[m]: We debated not supporting mastodon (zinat and pixelfed) because of that
# dansup I already have webfinger because I planned for OStatus support but zinat wont support webfinger or OStatus
# dansup I have to update that because I won't be supporting OStatus but I will make sure it federates with Mastodon :)
# dansup Gargron, nightpool ^^ you might want to remove the webfinger discovery requirement ;)
# jaywink[m] it's totally understandable that that route had to be taken in the initial phase to move to AP but it would indeed be great for the long term to not require webfinger
# dansup yeah, I thought long about that. I could remove webfinger but I dont want to break legacy support just like mastodon didnt
# dansup Its not a big deal to support it, I plan to add indieweb support eventually
# dansup I do agree that it shouldn't be a requirement for AP federation though
xmpp-social and fr33domlover joined the channel
# vasilakisfil ok I see, yeah figuring out what's part of AP and what's part of Mastodon is tricky for newcomers
# vasilakisfil I am curious though, why Mastodon webfinger-based solution is not good for long term ? Why webfinger doesn't look useful to you ?
# vasilakisfil you can always point to a link / gh issue if these things have already been explained
# jaywink[m] vasilakisfil: I think this is one discussion - https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/20
# jaywink[m] then there is this: https://github.com/w3c/activitypub/issues/194
# jaywink[m] but in reality, there will always be implementation specific details to iron out, depending on who you want to federate with, since AP is more of a framework than a strict spec. Mastodon just happens to be the largest implementer so everyone currently uses it as reference
# vasilakisfil thanks!
timbl joined the channel
# vasilakisfil ok went through them and a couple more. I can't say I figured out everything but I get a feeling that some people don't like webfinger because it restrics them
# vasilakisfil which might be true actually
# vasilakisfil "So if we agree that acct: can be a type of URI scheme, I don't see any problem with supporting webfinger IDs and accepting that as FYN. I know some of the group would prefer all FYN to be http or https, but oh well, accepting acct: solves this problem and allows us to preserve backwards compatibility."
# vasilakisfil what does FYN mean ?
vasilakisfil joined the channel
# jaywink[m] > The definition of FYN is "Fine"
# jaywink[m] I guess. Says the internet.
# jaywink[m] never heard myself :P
cwebber2, _xmpp-social and timbl joined the channel
# vasilakisfil yeah I also saw that definition, but if you replace FYN with Fine, doesn't make 100% sense
# saranix FYN = Fully ? Name -> guessing from context, didn't search and don't really care other than base curiosity :-)
# saranix oh.
# saranix duh
# saranix Follow Your Nose
# saranix I don't think having a URI protocol makes it follow your nose
# saranix it still requires a root context
# saranix (/.well-known/")
dlongley joined the channel