Re: Implementing Federation, Part I

Yeah, definitely. Ideally we could do knock-twice requests; try a 
request with the newest version of HTTP Signature, and if it fails, fall 
back to a second request with draft-cavage-11.

An optimization would be to cache the results of that test per ___domain, 
use the new version with ones that respond correctly to the new version, 
and periodically try the new version again with ones that didn't.

Evan

On 2023-12-19 8:52 a.m., Emelia Smith wrote:
> Small aside here: hopefully we can upgrade to the latest HTTP 
> Signatures spec soon through dual usage.. I think there's maybe a few 
> folks experimenting with this.
>
> Emelia
>
>> On 18. Dec 2023, at 23:18, James <jamesg@jamesg.blog> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Noted. We will reserve discussion time for this in our next meeting.
>>
>> James
>>
>> On Monday, 18 December 2023 at 22:14, Evan Prodromou 
>> <evan@prodromou.name> wrote:
>>
>>> Marcus, this is a really helpful blog post.
>>>
>>> As a community group at the W3C, we can publish Reports:
>>>
>>> https://www.w3.org/community/reports/reqs/
>>>
>>> Reports are the closest thing to “official” documentation from the 
>>> CG. We can use them for new specifications, or for documenting 
>>> existing practices. Or, really, for anything (processes, overviews, 
>>> research, whatever).
>>>
>>> I think there are two areas of documentation that we could provide 
>>> really helpful guidance to implementers with:
>>>
>>>   * *ActivityPub and WebFinger.*How to look up an ActivityPub actor
>>>     with a WebFinger ID. How to generate a WebFinger ID for an
>>>     ActivityPub actor.
>>>   * *ActivityPub and HTTP Signatures*: Which HTTP Signature version
>>>     we use. How to make a signed request. How to verify a signed
>>>     request.
>>>
>>>
>>> Making these reports doesn’t commit the CG or ActivityPub to these 
>>> other standards forever. But it would help implementers today make 
>>> software that’s compatible with the rest of the fediverse. It would 
>>> also provide a starting point for improvement.
>>>
>>> This isn’t/everything/ that’s needed beyond AP to make a fediverse 
>>> server, but it would be a big step forward.
>>>
>>> Chairs: I’d like to put this topic on the agenda for the next CG 
>>> meeting.
>>>
>>> Marcus: would you consider editing one of these Reports, if the 
>>> group decides to go ahead with this idea?
>>>
>>> Evan
>>>
>>> On 2023-12-16 2:52 p.m., Marcus Rohrmoser wrote:
>>>> Yesterday I wrote a small piece about what I learned about activitypub federation so far.
>>>>
>>>> https://blog.mro.name/2023/12/implementing-federation-i/
>>>>
>>>> Comments welcome.
>>>>
>>>> /Marcus
>>>>
>>>> P.S.: @Evan: cc-ing you again to evtl. investigate delivery.
>>>>
>>
>> <publickey - jamesg@jamesg.blog - 0xC06B40B5.asc>