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>