On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Melvin Carvalho <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > > On 18 September 2013 18:06, Nick Jennings <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Melvin Carvalho < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 18 September 2013 15:47, Nick Jennings <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Melvin Carvalho < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10 September 2013 19:45, Nick Jennings <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Carlo, nice to see this work being done, specifically a >>>>>> distributed pubsub implementation. Do you have a repo where this is being >>>>>> developed? Also is this just the beginning or is there something working >>>>>> already? >>>>>> >>>>>> One question regarding ActivityStreams below: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 6:41 PM, carlo von lynX < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At the same time as the implementation of this fundamental piece of >>>>>>> the GNU Internet is taking place, we will soon present the equivalent of >>>>>>> the ActivityStreams protocol, enabling developers to create user >>>>>>> interfaces >>>>>>> and further applications on top of an infrastructure that provides >>>>>>> similar >>>>>>> social functionality as the social services we are familiar with, but >>>>>>> in a >>>>>>> distributed and encrypted fashion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> I'm unclear why it makes sense to re-invent the ActivityStreams >>>>>> protocol? There is nothing in it's nature that defines infrastructure, so >>>>>> being distributed and/or encrypted is something that can build on-top of >>>>>> the existing protocol, also something I'm working closely with in >>>>>> Sockethub. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Activity streams is not a protocol >>>>> >>>>> >>>> That depends on who you ask, from the Wikipedia page: >>>> >>>> " The Activity >>>> Streams<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activity_Streams_%28format%29>project, >>>> for example, is an effort to develop an activity stream >>>> protocol <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_%28computing%29> to >>>> syndicate activities across social >>>> Web<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Web>applications. >>>> [2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activity_stream#cite_note-2> " >>>> >>>> While I agree there's more to a protocol than just the data format, >>>> there's definitely work being done to make the content of the AS objects >>>> indicate either intent or result, which lays the groundwork for a protocol. >>>> >>>> >>>> It's a data serialization. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> While basically true, I'm not sure that's a descriptive enough word, as >>>> JSON itself is a data serialization method. >>>> >>>> I was using the same words Carlo used to reference it, and I don't have >>>> a strong opinion either way, but I don't think using the term serialization >>>> makes it any clearer. >>>> >>>> >>>> The current version relies on a proprietary central registry of verbs >>>>> which does not (currently) support any form of encryption as far as I know >>>>> >>>> >>>> If AS is a protocol, then I don't understand why a definition of verbs >>>> should be considered proprietary or centralized - in the same way that any >>>> other protocol, be it HTTP, SMTP or FINGER, has a set of defined commands. >>>> >>>> If AS is a data serialization mechanism, I don't understand how it can >>>> written it to "support for any form of encryption". Are the two related? >>>> Does JSON itself have built in support for encryption that AS lacks? Could >>>> you give me some examples of data serialization which supports encryption? >>>> >>>> Maybe I misunderstand what is meant by the original statement by Carlo, >>>> but that's why I asked in the first place. >>>> >>> >>> "Depending on who you speak to" is hedging your bets a bit! >>> >>> I was speaking to you, what's your take? Is activity streams a protocol >>> or not? >>> >>> >> I'm more interested in my original question, not whether AS is a protocol >> or not. Like I said, I don't have a strong opinion either way. >> >> > OK, then why did you argue the case? > > I'm not arguing any case, I just pointed out that many people, including the OP and Wikipedia refer to AS as a protocol. I really don't care what people call it. Maybe you could ask Carlo why he chose those words. HTTP is the protocol, Activity Streams is the serialization. A > (communications) protocol is way more complex than a serialization. > I'm fully aware of the differences between serialization and protocols. > And if this is what you want to do with sockethub / activity stream, I > think you're going to run into major issues. > > My comment was that the Activity Streams specification does not mention > encryption anywhere. > > You are the person that said: "being distributed and/or encrypted is > something that can build on-top of the existing protocol" ... "something > I'm working closely with in Sockethub" > > I have doubts about this comment ... how do you intend to build encryption > on-top of Activity Streams? > You have doubts that I'm working closely with implementing encryption wherever I can? I'm sorry to hear that, but I asked my original question to perhaps gain some insight into what shortcomings AS has in regards to being implemented in a distributed, encrypted infrastructure. As in, what characteristics about a protocol or serialization method lend itself to encryption or make it more difficult, and why does it really matter what a payload is within an encrypted channel. I think it should be considered with care when deciding to re-implement something that already exists, like AS, to serve the same purpose. So I was curious as to what the thought process was, and asked the question in the hopes I might learn something new. I don't really want to continue to get caught up in semantics with you about wording of protocol vs. serialization, as it's completely unrelated to my question. Cheers Nick
