Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Wednesday, 19-Mar-2025 23:22:48 JST silverpill

   FEP-ef61 "Portable Objects" update:

   https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/pulls/529

   The role of decentralized identifiers in FEP-ef61 is similar to "servers" in vanilla ActivityPub: they control all actors within a certain namespace.
   When multiple actors exist under DID's authority, they will likely use same gateways. I added a sentence saying that gateways can be advertised via DID document as DID services (an example of that can be found in did:fedi spec). This is not possible with did:key, but might be useful with other DID methods.
   I am also considering moving gateways property to actor's endpoints mapping, where server-wide endpoints such as sharedInbox are usually defined (in our case they are "DID-wide").

   #fep_ef61 #NomadicIdentity

   • Embed this notice
     silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Thursday, 20-Mar-2025 02:50:07 JST silverpill

     in reply to

     • FenTiger

     @fentiger Do you think this scenario is realistic? Actors under a single DID authority are likely to be tightly coupled to each other, as their activities need to be signed by the same key.

   • Embed this notice
     FenTiger (fentiger@zotum.net)'s status on Thursday, 20-Mar-2025 02:50:09 JST FenTiger

     in reply to
     I would vote against putting it in endpoints, personally, because endpoints is "typically server/domain wide" and is allowed to be a link rather than a nested object, while gateways should be considered to vary from actor to actor, because two actors might be cloned to different sets of servers.
   • Embed this notice
     Fish of Rage (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Thursday, 20-Mar-2025 02:53:13 JST Fish of Rage

     in reply to
     @silverpill I spent so much time thinking about this and dids make everything so complicated lol
     clacke likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Thursday, 20-Mar-2025 03:03:30 JST silverpill

     in reply to

     • Fish of Rage

     @sun Yeah, I wanted decentralized identity in ActivityPub since I started Mitra, so it's been like four years now and I still don't understand how to do certain things.
     But this direction seems to be promising, and I have a feeling that eventually all this complexity will be abstracted away, and developers will be able to just take a library and start building things, like we do with HTTP libraries or implementations of cryptographic algorithms.

     Fish of Rage likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Thursday, 20-Mar-2025 03:35:56 JST silverpill

     in reply to

     • FenTiger

     @fentiger Understood. I am not making any breaking changes yet, let's see how current version works in practice first.

   • Embed this notice
     FenTiger (fentiger@zotum.net)'s status on Thursday, 20-Mar-2025 03:35:58 JST FenTiger

     in reply to
     @silverpill Well, in my (sketch of a) design, things like sharedInbox and proxyUrl point at the specific server that's hosting the clone, rather than being common to all the clones (and the oauthAuthorizationEndpoint and such are best found via different mechanisms entirely).
     
     I'll readily admit that there are other possible ways to build it, though.