#social 2018-08-23
2018-08-23 UTC
ben_thatmustbeme, ben_thatmust, KevinMarks, timbl, ajordan, xmpp-social, kaniini, vasilakisfil, KevinMarks_, fr33domlover, sknebel and dansup joined the channel
# 
up201705417 you might find GS tech report on ActivityPub plugin useful as well
# up201705417 https://go.diogo.site/
# up201705417 s/useful/helpful
# up201705417 https://go.diogo.site/gsoc2018 *
# nightpool[m] including the unix philosophy is kind of lo
# nightpool[m] *kind of lol
# nightpool[m] i don't think there are many people who would stand behind "making full use of ASCII repertoire to minimise keystrokes" in this day and age
# nightpool[m] i think you might want to make it clear that gnusocial defines an actor as having a URI like "https://myinstance.net/nickname"—obviously activitypub puts no such restriction on actor uris
# up201705417 actually I might want to fix that because GS's Actor URI do not have that format (anymore) *embarrassed* (and yes, I should emphasise that)
# nightpool[m] up201705417: this is a pretty small note, but "create two big guys" feels pretty informal for the tone of the rest of the report.
# nightpool[m] also it's not particularly idiomatic english.
# up201705417 nightpool: In the very beginning it was stated to be an informal report but it might be too portuguese, will change that as well, just a sec (and thx by the revision)
KevinMarks joined the channel
# up201705417 All right, updated :)
# nightpool[m] looks good!
# fiatjaf do I have to implement http signatures?
# nightpool[m] fiatjaf: http signatures are not a required part of activitypub, however, most implementations do currently require them
# fiatjaf is there a spec for what most implementations currently do?
# up201705417 I think pixelfed supports the absence of signatures with a fallback to outbox verification... (dansup can you confirm this?)
# up201705417 fiatjaf: that would actually be quite nice xD
# nightpool[m] http signatures avoid a "round-trip" problem, where sending a message requires a subsequent GET request to authenticate the activity
# nightpool[m] https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/ActivityPub/Authentication_Authorization — server to server
# dansup up201705417: nah, that was just an idea.
# dansup would be a DoS vector
# nightpool[m] ^ that's also a concern with the fallback approach
# nightpool[m] fiatjaf: the page I linked above documents what standards people are using for authentication.
fr33domlover joined the channel
# nightpool[m] https://activitypub.rocks/implementation-report/ should (ideally) document what individual servers require
kaniini and fr33domlover1 joined the channel
# nightpool[m] with respect to individual server federation requirements?
# nightpool[m] the question was "is there a survey of what most implementations currently [require for auth&auth]"
# nightpool[m] that doesn't feel like a very user-level question
# nightpool[m] that's fine
# nightpool[m] i think a user-facing page would be cool but there are a lot of hurdles like "how does this application specifically process activitystreams data" that would be pretty hard to communicate to users.
# nightpool[m] Like, how do you reasonably describe the position of Peertube in the network where different servers have totally different ways of handling Video objects?
KevinMarks, rhiaro, csarven and timbl joined the channel