We are implementing the final version of RFC9421 (HTTP Signatures) in Mastodon, and would like to test this with other ActivityPub implementations.
-
We are implementing the final version of RFC9421 (HTTP Signatures) in Mastodon, and would like to test this with other ActivityPub implementations.
Do you know of any AP implementations supporting both incoming (verification) and outgoing (signing) RFC9421 signatures, and if possible with support for the double-knocking mechanism as described in https://swicg.github.io/activitypub-http-signature/ (section 3.5)?
-
We are implementing the final version of RFC9421 (HTTP Signatures) in Mastodon, and would like to test this with other ActivityPub implementations.
Do you know of any AP implementations supporting both incoming (verification) and outgoing (signing) RFC9421 signatures, and if possible with support for the double-knocking mechanism as described in https://swicg.github.io/activitypub-http-signature/ (section 3.5)?
@renchap Pixelfed supports double blind sigs, I will update our logic to support the RFC9421 version!
I'll be in touch this week regarding our progress.
(P.S - I'm almost done follower collection sync too)
-
We are implementing the final version of RFC9421 (HTTP Signatures) in Mastodon, and would like to test this with other ActivityPub implementations.
Do you know of any AP implementations supporting both incoming (verification) and outgoing (signing) RFC9421 signatures, and if possible with support for the double-knocking mechanism as described in https://swicg.github.io/activitypub-http-signature/ (section 3.5)?
@renchap@oisaur.com how does RFC9421 differ from Mastodon’s existing support for HTTP Signatures?
Does this mean you’re moving away from
cavage-12? That’s important to know, and if you’re looking for an implementor to handle double-knocking, that is something I can put together for you… we don’t do it at current.
