Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   FinchHaven sfba (finchhaven@sfba.social)'s status on Friday, 03-Oct-2025 01:36:11 JST FinchHaven sfba

   This... seems very interesting

   #Bluesky is "...standardizing parts of #ATProtocol in an effort to establish long-term governance for the protocol."

   "to establish long-term governance for the protocol"

   Here: https://docs.bsky.app/blog/taking-at-to-ietf

   Also see at #Github:

   "Add patent pledge link to README (# 4246)"

   "Bluesky Social PBC has committed to a software patent non-aggression pledge. For details see [the original announcement] (https://bsky.social/about/blog/10-01-2025-patent-pledge)."

   Here: https://github.com/bluesky-social/atproto/commit/d239f0bcf5e7ed391c8ced32e13aaa4c1324a757

   All that said, not sure exactly what it *means* long-term, but it is... interesting

   #AT #IETF #Patents

   • Embed this notice
     silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Friday, 03-Oct-2025 01:36:09 JST silverpill

     in reply to

     • Paul_IPv6
     • bryan newbold

     @bnewbold Do you still plan to push for an updated URI specification that would allow DID authorities?

     Some ActivityPub developers are interested in this too.

     @paul_ipv6 @FinchHaven

   • Embed this notice
     bryan newbold (bnewbold@social.coop)'s status on Friday, 03-Oct-2025 01:36:10 JST bryan newbold

     in reply to

     • Paul_IPv6

     @paul_ipv6 @FinchHaven our understanding is that the IETF community would *not* want to take on a giant stack of protocol components all at once. we think bringing the pieces which fit well in that venue, starting small to get established, is the best path foward.

     if you are interested we have an broad overview I-D:
     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-newbold-at-architecture/

     and an I-D covering the parts we would charter to bring first:
     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-holmgren-at-repository/

     we have a BoF coming up in Montreal

   • Embed this notice
     Paul_IPv6 (paul_ipv6@infosec.exchange)'s status on Friday, 03-Oct-2025 01:36:11 JST Paul_IPv6

     in reply to

     @FinchHaven "...standardizing parts of #ATProtocol in an effort to establish long-term governance for the protocol."

     "parts"?

     OSI failed because every vendor wanted their existing, non-interoperable implementations to all somehow magically work by having a non-functional subset of all those vendors' implementations as required but anything they didn't want to change as option. result. the same non-interoperability.

     the IETF and TCP/IP are ubiquitous now because they didn't try to avoid actual interoperability in the name of some useless "protocol compliance" of a subset.

     color me skeptical that this will be a useful exercise.