Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://mitra.social/objects/01973625-1d5b-c755-1088-0d425d726a05">silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Tuesday, 03-Jun-2025 23:15:21 JST</a><a href="https://mitra.social/users/silverpill" title="silverpill@mitra.social"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/85321-48-20230105202807.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="silverpill" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">silverpill</a></section><article><p><a href="https://swicg.github.io/activitypub-http-signature/#how-to-upgrade-supported-versions">ActivityPub and HTTP Signatures</a> recommends double-knocking to those who want to produce RFC 9421 signatures.</p><p>This is ridiculous because it means making ~2x more POST requests to deliver an activity. And eventually there will be another upgrade. Then what, triple-knocking?</p><p>I think capabilities like RFC-9421 support can advertised via actor properties.</p><p>It can look like this:</p>{
  "id": "https://social.example/actor",
  "type": "Person",
  "generator": {
    "type": "Application",
    "implements": [
      {
        "name": "RFC-9421: HTTP Message Signatures",
        "href": "https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9421"
      }
    ]
  }
}
<p>Here is a FEP draft:</p><p><a href="https://codeberg.org/silverpill/feps/src/branch/main/844e/fep-844e.md">https://codeberg.org/silverpill/feps/src/branch/main/844e/fep-844e.md</a></p><p><a href="https://fediversity.site/channel/rfc9421">@rfc9421</a></p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/5143503#notice-10089191">In conversation</a><time datetime="2025-06-03T23:15:21+09:00" title="Tuesday, 03-Jun-2025 23:15:21 JST">about 4 days ago</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://mitra.social/objects/01973625-1d5b-c755-1088-0d425d726a05" rel="external" title="Sent from mitra.social via ActivityPub">mitra.social</a></span></span><a href="https://mitra.social/objects/01973625-1d5b-c755-1088-0d425d726a05">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><article><header><div>No result found on File_thumbnail lookup.</div><h5><a href="http://properties.It/">properties.It</a></h5><div></div></header><div></div><footer></footer></article></li><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/4722826">Untitled attachment</a></label><br></li><li><article><header><div>Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: static.ietf.org</div><h5><a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9421">RFC 9421: HTTP Message Signatures</a></h5><div> from <span>Manu Sporny</span></div></header><div>This document describes a mechanism for creating, encoding, and verifying digital signatures or message authentication codes over components of an HTTP message. This mechanism supports use cases where the full HTTP message may not be known to the signer and where the message may be transformed (e.g., by intermediaries) before reaching the verifier. This document also describes a means for requesting that a signature be applied to a subsequent HTTP message in an ongoing HTTP exchange.</div><footer></footer></article></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
silverpill (silverpill@mitra.social)'s status on Tuesday, 03-Jun-2025 23:15:21 JST silverpill
ActivityPub and HTTP Signatures recommends double-knocking to those who want to produce RFC 9421 signatures.
This is ridiculous because it means making ~2x more POST requests to deliver an activity. And eventually there will be another upgrade. Then what, triple-knocking?
I think capabilities like RFC-9421 support can advertised via actor properties.
It can look like this:
{ "id": "https://social.example/actor", "type": "Person", "generator": { "type": "Application", "implements": [ { "name": "RFC-9421: HTTP Message Signatures", "href": "https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9421" } ] } }
Here is a FEP draft:
https://codeberg.org/silverpill/feps/src/branch/main/844e/fep-844e.md
@rfc9421
In conversationabout 4 days ago from mitra.socialpermalink
Attachments
1. No result found on File_thumbnail lookup.
  properties.It
2. Untitled attachment
3. Domain not in remote thumbnail source whitelist: static.ietf.org
  RFC 9421: HTTP Message Signatures
  from Manu Sporny
  This document describes a mechanism for creating, encoding, and verifying digital signatures or message authentication codes over components of an HTTP message. This mechanism supports use cases where the full HTTP message may not be known to the signer and where the message may be transformed (e.g., by intermediaries) before reaching the verifier. This document also describes a means for requesting that a signature be applied to a subsequent HTTP message in an ongoing HTTP exchange.

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice