@silverpillActivityStreams allows @context to be missing, too: When a JSON-LD enabled Activity Streams 2.0 implementation encounters a JSON document identified using the "application/activity+json" MIME media type, and that document does not contain a @context property whose value includes a reference to the normative Activity Streams 2.0 JSON-LD @context definition, the implementation MUST assume that the normative @context definition still applies.
As ever, the spec only tells me that it exists; it doesn't say anything about what it contains, where it gets delivered to, how the recipient processes it, etc.
Maybe I could find out more by setting up some test instances and experimenting with it, or by trying to trawl through various repositories to find the relevant source code - but it seems a lot quicker to just ask.
@silverpill Do you have to double-knock every time? Can't you cache the result when a POST succeeds, so you know which signature method to use next time you deliver to that instance?
"Servers SHOULD implement NodeInfo..." seems a bit strong, especially considering that some people are quite strongly opposed to it. Is this really a SHOULD? Or would it be better to write a paragraph or two about the pros and cons, and let implementers decide for themselves?
Would it be worth recommending that implementers provide a config option to allow NodeInfo to be switched on and off by the instance admin?
Should there be a recommendation that "Consumers SHOULD NOT assume that any given Fediverse site will implement NodeInfo"?
I've seen code out there that uses a NodeInfo hit to decide which auth protocol to use for cross-instance login. I personally don't like this approach and would prefer not to encourage people to use designs like this.
I've been meaning to do this for a while, to work out how it relates to OpenWebAuth authentication (as described in FEP-61cf), but unless I'm missing something (very possible), it's an entirely separate mechanism.
Summary: it's based on bearer tokens / capability URLs. Each post gets given a random token, and that token grants access to any media files which are attached to it. If you're allowed to view the post, the URLs that it contains grant you the capability to download the attachments, too.
@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.
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.
@silverpill How does it check that the user is logged in? Does it present a login form? It checks whether the user has a session cookie. Hubzilla doesn't show a login form here; it could, but that wouldn't work so well for eg image fetches. And then, after login, which instance generates activities? FEP-61cf only covers authenticating the user. It doesn't tackle the question of what happens when the now-authenticated user writes a post. How should that post federate outwards, in such a way that other instances can trust it? I don't know how Hubzilla approaches this; maybe @Mario Vavti can comment.
Suppose you want to allow people to log in to your web site. How will they identify themselves? With a username and password? We've all got far too many of those already, and they're not even particularly secure. Perhaps with a Google or Facebook account? That's a lot easier, but do we really want to allow these companies even further into our lives?
FedIAM is a research project which aims to offer an alternative: using Fediverse and IndieWeb protocols, visitors can log in using any one of thousands of small, independent networks run by ordinary people - or even using a provider that they host themselves, independently of any outside influence.
@silverpill Good question. Quick, shallow answer: this is just a login system, not an #ActivityPub instance. It could certainly be used in front of an ActivityPub instance, though, and in that context, it's definitely worth thinking about. I don't have any concrete answers, but off the top of my head:
The simplest option would be to create a new local actor, and use this purely for login. Sometimes this is the only option - IndieAuth and the native OIDC mode can both work without the existence of an AP actor at the IdP end.
Another option would be to pair it with AP C2S. The OAuth2/OIDC based modes can provide an access token as well as an identity; this could be used to authorise the RP to connect back to the IdP and post using C2S. This would take a bit of standardisation work, but not a lot; my impression is this would be fairly easy to build.
What if the user has a FEP-ef61 nomadic actor? Sending the private key from the IdP to the RP is probably not a very good idea, but perhaps the IdP could expose an access-controlled endpoint to generate a signature on the user's behalf. With this method the RP would construct an object with attributedTo set to the user's nomadic actor ID, request a signature from the IdP, and then distribute the object however it chooses. (In this case, perhaps the IdP should get to choose the new object's ID too, at which point this starts to look a lot like a variant of C2S.)
@silverpill Yes. It lets you log in using an existing account rather than having to register a new one - but in a "Fediverse compatible" way, without any of the technical and social problems which come with using a Big Tech provider.
It can also (in some, admittedly limited, circumstances) recognise your login session automatically, without having to actually enter your ID every time you click from one site to another.
If you have a Mastodon or Hubzilla account, or an IndieAuth-style self-hosted identity, I'd like to invite you to try and sign in to my test site at login.mythik.co.uk.
Headline features:
User authentication/authorization based on the Ory tools.
Supports signing in using an existing Fediverse (or other) account - or one you host yourself
Open source - well, not yet, but it could be, if people are interested in it
Written by a non-expert! Woefully insecure! All manner of attacks, just waiting to be found! Invite your security expert friends to the party, and laugh together at the n00b! Fun for all the family!
If you can get it to work - share a screenshot and let me know what you think!
(I'll try to keep this running for a while, but I can't guarantee it - partly because I haven't finished trying to attack it yet. If I have to take it down for some reason, I'll edit this post to say so.)
@silverpill What's the purpose of the did: and key: prefixes at this point? Can they be removed?
It might be a good idea to have something there that can differentiate newer versions of the scheme - but if did: in particular can go, people might be less likely to associate this with all the dodgy bl*ckch*ain stuff.
&url.URL{ Scheme:"did", Opaque:"ap🔑z6abcdef/path/to/object", Host:"", Path:"", [...] }So I need some kind of wrapper to detect DID URLs and parse the paths out of them. That's easy enough, I suppose, but then I need to actually use that wrapper, in all the relevant places...
I tried https://mitra.social/.well-known/apresolver/did:ap: key:z6MkuXdkTDa1iAZraZCRT9N5BpXKZxvBYpR4T7EG4tTxYuda/actor, and got a 200, but it's a HTML page, not the actor object. I don't see a Link header, either.
(Space inserted so Hubzilla doesn't convert "key" into a 🔑 emoji!)