FEP-61cf: The OpenWebAuth Protocol
(socialhub.activitypub.rocks)
from 0x1C3B00DA@kbin.social to fediverse@lemmy.ml on 09 Feb 2024 20:40
https://kbin.social/m/fediverse@lemmy.ml/t/823617
from 0x1C3B00DA@kbin.social to fediverse@lemmy.ml on 09 Feb 2024 20:40
https://kbin.social/m/fediverse@lemmy.ml/t/823617
This is the proposed FEP-61cf: The OpenWebAuth Protocol. OpenWebAuth is the “single sign-on” mechanism used by Hubzilla, (streams) and other related projects. It allows a browser-based user to log in to services across the Fediverse using a single identity. Once logged in, they can be recognised by other OpenWebAuth-compatible services, ...
threaded - newest
The proposal fails to sufficiently motivate why existing protocols like OpenId Connect can’t be used given that trusting the user’s home instance seems necessary with this protocol too. The name also is confusingly close to WebAuthn.
This looks really odd in relation to other fediverse software; Why
/magic
and required to be on the root of the domain? Why hard-require routing the domain part of the user ID when.well-known/webfinger
exists? Why is there aX-Open-Web-Auth
header which the spec only describes as “its purpose is unclear from the code”?So many questions.
I definitely like the idea of distributed sign-in, Solid did a decent work of that many years ago after all. This particular proposal just looks rather odd.
I agree, and
.well-known/webfinger
is already largely adopted, we should build upon what we already have, not creating even more standards.OpenWebAuth has been in use on the fediverse since before WebFinger became so widely used.
Like I said in a previous comment, this FEP was written by reverse engineering the existing implementation. It's still a proposal so it still has to go through a discussion period where issues like this can be worked out and it can be updated
Oh I see. Thanks!
The author wrote this FEP by reverse engineering the Hubzilla implementation. The point of proposing it is to find and answer questions like these.