Maddy@maddyunderstars@aus.social

FEP-bebd: Follow Invites

This is the discussion thread for the draft FEP-bebd: Follow Invites

> This document describes an alternative method of accepting follow requests via an 'invite code' intended to be used with Private FEP-1b12 Groups, although it is applicable to any Actor. It further defines an extension of Webfinger to resolve an InviteCode to its corresponding Actor.

Full text here:
codeberg.org/MaddyUnderStars/f

#fep_bebd #fep #fedidev

Summary card of repository MaddyUnderStars/fep, described as: Fediverse Enhancement ProposalsCodeberg.orgfep/fep/bebd/fep-bebd.md at invitesfep - Fediverse Enhancement Proposals
silverpill@silverpill@mitra.social

Replying to @⁨maddyunderstars@aus.social⁩

@maddyunderstars

Activities on InviteCodes

When an activity modifying the InviteCodes for an Actor is received, the Actor MUST ensure that the activity is being performed by an authorised Actor.

Did you mean "modifying the invites collection of an Actor"?
How to ensure that activity is being performed by an authorized actor?

To create a new InviteCode for an Actor, a standard Add activity is sent to the Actor the InviteCode is associated with.

Is there a Create(InviteCode) activity? Or invite code is supposed to be created as a side-effect of Add activity?

@technical-discussion

Maddy@maddyunderstars@aus.social

Replying to @⁨silverpill@mitra.social⁩

@silverpill @technical-discussion Thank you.

Yes it should probably read 'modifying the invites collection'.

There's a footnote on what authorised actors are, tldr it's however you decide to do it. Shoot checks if the activities actor is a member of the guild and that they have sufficient permissions (MANAGE_INVITES). Do you think I should elaborate more on this? I didn't want to be too specific, because Shoot permissions aren't super useful for the rest of fedi, and specifying some other mechanism might lock Shoot out.

It's a side effect of Add currently. Should it be the other way around? I guess Create<Note> adds to the outbox, so it would make sense.

en
silverpill@silverpill@mitra.social

Replying to @⁨maddyunderstars@aus.social⁩

@maddyunderstars @technical-discussion

Do you think I should elaborate more on this?

Yes. I think an example from FEP-1b12 realm will be helpful. Can actors from FEP-1b12 "moderators" collection be considered authorised actors?

There's a footnote on what authorised actors are, tldr it's however you decide to do it.

In that section, you mention "the 'invite-actor'". Does this term refer to InviteCode.attributedTo actor?

It's a side effect of Add currently. Should it be the other way around? I guess Create<Note> adds to the outbox, so it would make sense.

I would expect that an invite code is Created first, and then Added. At least when using ActivityPub API clients.