<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Tracking RFC 9421 Adoption]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">One of the big pain points for ActivityPub developers is supporting HTTP Signature in their servers. The Fediverse uses an out-dated draft standard, <a href="https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cavage-http-signatures-12" rel="nofollow ugc">draft cavage 12</a>. There's a helpful <a href="https://swicg.github.io/activitypub-http-signature/" rel="nofollow ugc">ActivityPub and HTTP Signatures</a> report from the SocialCG, but it's still kind of a slog.</p>
<p dir="auto">Some server software has begun the pivot to using <a href="https://swicg.github.io/activitypub-http-signature/#how-to-upgrade-supported-versions" rel="nofollow ugc">double-knocking</a>, <a href="https://codeberg.org/fediverse/fep/src/branch/main/fep/844e/fep-844e.md" rel="nofollow ugc">capability discovery</a>, or something else.</p>
<p dir="auto">To track support for RFC 9421, I added an <a href="https://swicg.github.io/activitypub-http-signature/RFC9421" rel="nofollow ugc">adoption matrix</a> to the ActivityPub HTTP Signature repo. I grabbed all the <a href="https://fedidb.com/software/" rel="nofollow ugc">software listed on FediDB</a>, and laid out a matrix of whether it accepts RFC 9421 signatures for GET and POST or sends RFC 9421 for GET and POST. I also included a way to find relevant bug-tracker issues.</p>
<p dir="auto"><a href="https://swicg.github.io/activitypub-http-signature/RFC9421" rel="nofollow ugc">https://swicg.github.io/activitypub-http-signature/RFC9421</a></p>
<p dir="auto">It would be a huge help to get some more eyes and data on this adoption matrix. If you know about a Fediverse server package's support for RFC 9421, including your own, please make a PR against the <a href="http://RFC9421.md" rel="nofollow ugc">RFC9421.md</a> file in the <a href="https://github.com/swicg/activitypub-http-signature" rel="nofollow ugc">swicg/activitypub-http-signature</a> repo.</p>
<p dir="auto">Thanks!</p>
]]></description><link>https://postcall.pub/topic/3c6a7345-ad4f-483d-85a2-84a4515f2251/tracking-rfc-9421-adoption</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2026 02:21:20 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://postcall.pub/topic/3c6a7345-ad4f-483d-85a2-84a4515f2251.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Sun, 16 Aug 2026 18:11:05 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Tracking RFC 9421 Adoption on Mon, 28 Sep 2026 12:28:42 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p><span><a href="/user/evan%40activitypub.space">@<span>evan</span></a></span> I will try to keep it on my mind, when we eventuall have got a release. We included it in our upcoming release.</p><p>BTW: I saw that tags.pub is working with it, so our implementation doesn't seem completely wrong here <img src="https://postcall.pub/assets/plugins/nodebb-plugin-emoji/emoji/android/1f600.png?v=46d74f5bcff" class="not-responsive emoji emoji-android emoji--grinning" style="height:23px;width:auto;vertical-align:middle" title="😀" alt="😀" /></p>]]></description><link>https://postcall.pub/post/https://pirati.ca/objects/ec054ce7-376a-ba5d-7a76-ea2517369122</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://postcall.pub/post/https://pirati.ca/objects/ec054ce7-376a-ba5d-7a76-ea2517369122</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[heluecht@pirati.ca]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 12:28:42 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Tracking RFC 9421 Adoption on Mon, 17 Aug 2026 17:18:00 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">I will say that adoption of RFC 9421 is a more difficult than anticipated because many of us hacked our cavage-12 implementations in by testing against Mastodon.</p>
<p dir="auto">Specifically, I remember a very old (and outdated even then!) blog post by <a href="https://activitypub.space/user/gargron%40mastodon.social" rel="nofollow ugc">@gargron@mastodon.social</a> about how Signatures were implemented by Mastodon, and that formed the basis of how NodeBB signed its messages.</p>
<p dir="auto">I'm glad we're moving on but I think for the majority of us, having a reliable library to do the heavy lifting is important.</p>
<p dir="auto">Don't roll your own HTTP signatures folks!</p>
]]></description><link>https://postcall.pub/post/https://activitypub.space/post/2367</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://postcall.pub/post/https://activitypub.space/post/2367</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[julian@activitypub.space]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 17:18:00 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>