On 19 September 2013 21:51, Nick Jennings <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > 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. > i asked how you are working to build encryption on top, in line with our claim > > 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. > activity streams itself is a reinvention ... you are saying pick one reinvention over another and at the same time not to reinvent ... it's a contradiction > > Cheers > Nick >
