[TRACKING] FEP-2c59: Discovery of a Webfinger address from an ActivityPub actor

silverpill commented

2024-01-04 15:21:52 +00:00

Owner

The proposal has been received. Thank you!

This issue tracks discussions and updates to the proposal during the DRAFT period.

Please post links to relevant discussions as comment to this issue.

dateReceived: 2024-01-04

If no further actions are taken, the proposal may be set by editors to WITHDRAWN on 2025-01-04 (in 1 year).

The [proposal](https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/2c59/fep-2c59.md) has been received. Thank you! This issue tracks discussions and updates to the proposal during the `DRAFT` period. Please post links to relevant discussions as comment to this issue. `dateReceived`: 2024-01-04 If no further actions are taken, the proposal may be set by editors to `WITHDRAWN` on 2025-01-04 (in 1 year).

silverpill added the

FEP Draft

label 2024-01-04 15:21:52 +00:00

silverpill commented

2024-01-04 15:25:57 +00:00

Author

Owner

Discussion: https://socialhub.activitypub.rocks/t/fep-2c59-discovery-of-a-webfinger-address-from-an-activitypub-actor/3813

silverpill referenced this issue

2024-01-04 15:26:21 +00:00

feat: FEP-2c59: Discovery of a Webfinger address from an ActivityPub actor #225

steve-bate commented

2024-01-04 15:28:55 +00:00

Contributor

received in 1970? ;-)

mro commented

2024-01-04 15:29:35 +00:00

@evan, the domain name in the property looks redundant, what if it doesn't match the actor profile host?

I would recommend focussing on the local part and thus be local to the domain of the actor profile. Like Yaron Minsky recommends, don't represent undesired state.

Is there a usecase for cross-domain?

Also I would recommend a property name localpart and have the namespace mention rfc7033 like https://purl.archive.org/socialweb/rfc7033#

@evan, the domain name in the property looks redundant, what if it doesn't match the actor profile host? I would recommend focussing on the local part and thus be local to the domain of the actor profile. Like Yaron Minsky recommends, don't represent undesired state. Is there a usecase for cross-domain? Also I would recommend a property name `localpart` and have the namespace mention rfc7033 like https://purl.archive.org/socialweb/rfc7033#

mro commented

2024-01-04 15:31:11 +00:00

why should redirects be forbidden? That sounds odd for a http protocol.

silverpill commented

2024-01-04 15:37:18 +00:00

Author

Owner

received in 1970? ;-)

@steve-bate Oops. The submitted document had this value in its front matter, and our automation used it to generate the issue description. I fixed it.

We should probably remove dateReceived from a template and insert it using a script like with do with discussionsTo #163

>received in 1970? ;-) @steve-bate Oops. The submitted document had this value in its front matter, and our automation used it to generate the issue description. I fixed it. We should probably remove `dateReceived` from a template and insert it using a script like with do with `discussionsTo` #163

👍 1

evanp commented

2024-01-04 15:58:50 +00:00

Contributor

@mro I'll reply in the discussion threads, OK?

👍 1

Rows
Columns

[TRACKING] FEP-2c59: Discovery of a Webfinger address from an ActivityPub actor #226