Phantasm@phnt@fluffytail.org: >We will end up with an OAuth profile for Activ…

Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout

Note Detail

Phantasm@phnt@fluffytail.org (2026-05-04 16:23:45)
>We will end up with an OAuth profile for ActivityPub, but it'll probably just be mostly identical to the OAuth profile from AT Protocol.

Literally nobody cares. Nobody asked. Nobody is implementing this shitshow: https://github.com/swicg/activitypub-api/issues/1#issuecomment-3708524521
We solved the issue a long time ago.
image.png

RT: https://activitypub.space/post/1839
---Attachments---
image: https://upload.fluffytail.org/media/a2/3d/b6/a23db6e43b3dd885e23ddf22aa065f34fbc68f0b7a806eeadc73b42eab84ab26.png?name=image.png


---Replies---

silverpill@silverpill@mitra.social (2026-05-04 17:02:55)
@phnt I don't quite understand what this is all about. It seems that Emelia is suggesting sticking to RFCs while Evan is pushing for a custom solution.
Is OAuth 2.1 a bad thing? On the surface, it is an improvement, basically an update to OAuth 2.0 that makes it less ambiguous and more secure.