Spacc BBS Spacc BBS
    • Categorie
    • Recenti
    • Tag
    • Popolare
    • Mondo
    • Utenti
    • Gruppi
    • Registrati
    • Accedi
    La nuova BBS è in fase Alpha. I post precedenti al 22 luglio 2024 potrebbero non essere trasferibili, ma rimarranno disponibili per la lettura su /old/.

    Breaking up FEP d8c2 (OAuth 2.0 profile for the ActivityPub API)

    Pianificato Fissato Bloccato Spostato Uncategorized
    2 Post 2 Autori 2 Visualizzazioni
    Caricamento altri post
    • Da Vecchi a Nuovi
    • Da Nuovi a Vecchi
    • Più Voti
    Rispondi
    • Topic risposta
    Effettua l'accesso per rispondere
    Questa discussione è stata eliminata. Solo gli utenti con diritti di gestione possono vederla.
    • evan@activitypub.spaceE Questo utente è esterno a questo forum
      evan@activitypub.space
      ultima modifica di

      Hey, all. So, almost two years ago I wrote this FEP:

      Link Preview Image
      fep/fep/d8c2/fep-d8c2.md at main

      fep - Fediverse Enhancement Proposals

      favicon

      Codeberg.org (codeberg.org)

      It defines a profile for using OAuth 2.0 with the ActivityPub API, with a few components:

      • Using the bog-standard OAuth authorization code flow as described at https://oauth.com/, including PKCE
      • Using the endpoints, oauthAuthorizationEndpoint and oauthTokenEndpoint properties of an actor for discovery of endpoints
      • Using a small set of scopes (defined in the FEP as 'read', 'write' and 'sameorigin', but with a much longer more detailed list here
      • A registrationless client ID mechanism that depends on having an Application ActivityPub object live on the Web.

      Of these 4 points, I think the first two are defined pretty well elsewhere. It is probably a good idea to just let those be defined elsewhere. I think the possibility of an OAuth TF for the SocialCG suggests that those options can be worked out there.

      That leaves the two novel parts of the FEP: the registration-less client IDs, and the scopes. I think I'd like to slim down the current FEP to just the registration-less client IDs, and start another FEP for the scopes.

      julian@community.nodebb.orgJ 1 Risposta Ultima Risposta Rispondi Cita 0
      • julian@community.nodebb.orgJ Questo utente è esterno a questo forum
        julian@community.nodebb.org @evan@activitypub.space
        ultima modifica di

        Hey evan@activitypub.space, I am all-in on more, simpler FEPs over monolithic impenetrable FEPs.

        I take it that points 1 and 2 are due to concerns raised by thisismissem@hachyderm.io about how OAuth2 properties are already advertised in a standardized manner (I believe per OIDC or similar?) — no objections there.

        On the topic of scopes, I know benpate@mastodon.social's 3b86 (Activity Intents) had some ideas on defining intents that have some parallels to scopes. I don't agree with hardcoding them all into the FEP itself, but I'm interested in exploring how we structure scopes so that they're more straightforward as not quite as fine-grained — a single scope for every ActivityStreams activity type might be a bit of overkill.

        1 Risposta Ultima Risposta Rispondi Cita 0
        • Primo post
          Ultimo post