Re: RFC: tent.io (protocol for social networking)

On 24 September 2012 13:50, Michiel de Jong <michiel@unhosted.org> wrote:

> Hi Daniel,
>
> I think tent.io is awesome, and if any of the developers is reading
> this: Welcome to the list! :)
>
> Since you asked for our opinions, let me also list three remarks re
> tent.io after reading their faq:
>
> 1) On http://tent.io/ there is a section 'what about the federated
> social web', which i think is interesting. They describe the federated
> social web as a "network of networks of servers", in which some
> functions only work if two people are on the same server (instance), a
> slightly smaller set works if two people are on the same software, and
> only a relatively small subset will work of two people are on
> different software.
>
> I think this is accurate, and identifies an important problem. I do
> not think that tent.io is currently proposing a solution though. But
> let's hope they will add private messaging and some other things in
> the future, and can come closer to a fully multi-feature fedsocweb
> protocol. What is admirable is that they seem to design their protocol
> independently of their server implementation, although unfortunately i
> think it's naive to think that other software projects will now
> suddenly switch to their protocol for that reason.
>
> 2) in "What can Tent users do that they could not on other social
> networks?" it states that you can migrate your tent.io account from
> one server to another without (as i understand it) losing your friends
> list, and without your friends losing you from their friends list. but
> i had a look in the api docs to see if i could find any 'migrate'
> functions, but couldn't find them, so i don't see how they do this.
>
> 3) 'Tent will be a completely free and open standard. To prevent
> fragmentation before launch, the original authors currently retain
> copyright.' - let's hope they make it non-proprietary soon.
>
> In general, i believe in a federated social web where there is one
> name space of contacts, yet multiple languages (OStatus, xmpp,
> ActivityPump, tent.io, diaspora-protocol, StatusNet-protocol, zot,
> etcetera, but also just good old smtp) in which two servers, or a
> client and a server, can communicate with each other. I think we
> should stop looking for "the" protocol, and just be happy that there
> is such a wealth of different specialized protocol being used for
> different tasks. All those protocols together can be used alongside
> each other, and not all servers need support all protocols.
>
> As long as the namespace in which each account refers to all its
> contacts is generic across all those protocols.
>

+1 to this

I'd add to "good old SMTP" ... "good old HTTP POST" ... after all it powers
most forms on the Web today and by its very nature can be used for
federated communication


>
>
> Ciao!
> Michiel
>
>