Goofed Home

@evan

> Rate limits are a common part of APIs.

Yes, of API *implementations*, and they may become part of the public interface of these implementation. Whether they should be part of an open standard protocol specification is a different matter imho. Perhaps in a separate implementation guide, suggesting recommended practices.

Or perhaps there may be some way to formulate a generic mechanism in the protocol specification that makes rate limits an extension point, without pinning to a particular method, esp. if it is only a de facto standard.

(Other example. The fediverse is still pinned to an expired draft of HTTP signatures.)

OTOH if the goal of the task force is to mostly just provide implementation guidance, and maybe a reference impl, then I guess examples of rate limiting may be provided.

@julian

@smallcircles @julian the point of the API task force is to make using the API across servers possible. That's why we're doing the OAuth work. I think rate limiting is part of the basic profile; it's one of the things you need to support to use the API across different servers.

@julian There are 3 main clusters.

They're linked here for the ActivityPub API task force, but they also apply for the federation protocol:

https://github.com/swicg/activitypub-api/issues/4#issuecomment-4083573914

@smallcircles @julian I disagree!

Rate limits are a common part of APIs. For apps to work across servers, the servers need to provide about the same interface.

Using standard rate-limiting headers lets client apps detect what rate limits they will be held to. It reduces the uncertainty.

Fortunately, there is a well known de facto standard and an even better IETF standard coming up. We should point them out.

I mean, I just did every search query as an actor.. and this isn’t much different.

Every *potential* number is ready to go, and just gets a db entry (and actual behavior) once someone interacts with it.

@julian @smallcircles

@julian @smallcircles

Fascinating idea! And stuff like this is going to spark many more..

Would you Follow the book in order to see when it’s back on the shelf?

@benpate @julian@activitypub.space @smallcircles In case you haven't come across it yet, https://millsfield.sfomuseum.org/blog/2024/03/12/activitypub/ will be a fun read!

@julian @benpate

> who says fediverse accounts need to be people?

Certainly not me. I'm thinking on an actor-based service-oriented fedi, which more closely represents actor model. Where the social network is a pure social graph of addressible actors, that can be introspected for the services they provide.

Yes, a book might be an actor, as well as the shelf :)

@smallcircles @hongminhee @evan @steve browser.pub is incorrect here -- having a range of Object or Link doesn't mean that schema PropertyValue is not allowed. it means that the value is inferred to be an Object or a Link *in addition to* a PropertyValue. there is no problem as long as there are no conflicting statements being made.

cc @js

@MichalBryxi @alex @smallcircles it's a hack, agreed.

@smallcircles @alex @MichalBryxi it's pretty common on the Fediverse.

That said, I'd love to add vocabulary terms for it. And you could edit your actor object and add them.

@julian @evan

Well.. atm all options have 25% of the vote 😅

@smallcircles @julian

https://evanp.me/pollfaq#itdepends