timbl, naturzukunft, xmpp-social, vitalyster and vasilakisfil_ joined the channel; vitalyster left the channel
#jdormit[m]The spec doesn't specify that servers should deliver activities to actors in the inReplyTo chain. Does this mean that it's valid to reply to an activity but not address the reply to the actor of the activity you are replying to?
#nightpool[m]I also think it's kind of weird, but that's more of a AP/AS split problem.
#nightpool[m]If anything it's a failure on the part of AS2
#jdormit[m]Yeah I feel like maybe the AP spec should require that servers deliver to inReplyTo actors up to a certain depth
#jdormit[m]But eh, if it's not in the spec right now I am not going to do that
vasilakisfil, vitalyster and godva[m] joined the channel; vitalyster left the channel
#fr33domloverjdormit, nightpool, I wonder if it's better to keep it split, so that delivery info and actual object info are independent. For example what if in some p2p anonymous system I deliver some possibly encrypted note to a random list of people, having it eventually propagate to whoever I really want to send it to
#nightpool[m]yes i also think it's better to keep it split
#nightpool[m]but imo as2 should say something like "`inReplyTo` implies `to`" or "`inReplyTo` should be considered part of the activity's audience for audience targeting" to make it more explicit
#fr33domlovernightpool[m], hmmm also, if the spec doesn't require the server to deliver everything the client sends, then the server is allowed to filter, I mean say in C2S the server could reject an activity where "inReplyTo" doesn't appear in the addressing fields too
#nightpool[m]I mean, I don't think there's anything wrong with it, or any reason why it would be necessary to enforce it. it's just a bit of a weird thing to remember when constructing AS2 objects