-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Minimal user agency #377
Comments
The completion of #399 and emergence of the Make Kitsune possible to run as just an auth server (identity db). And, conversely, just a send/receive server (pubsub pipe). Or both. It takes a lot for me to be bothered with the overhead of self-hosting, but if I could take proper ownership of my federated identity and its authorized app personas by self-hosting it, I’d probably start doing that. I don’t think I’ll ever wanna bother with the pipes on my own; I wanna outsource that to the most fitting host-collective. I wanna self-host something like a What this would enable is a two-tiered hosting setup. It’s a bit like splitting Kitsune up by the metaphorical duality of body and soul. Point being that ‘everyone’ (at least as far as the early-adopter techie crowd goes) takes care of their own soul (auth), which can be plugged into any larger body-organism (pipes) of one’s choosing. By separating out the auth-layer of Kitsune to let users self-host that subsection of the app in the most lightweight way possible, you empower users to interface with the rest of Kitsune from a point of self-sovereign digital identity. p.s. An interesting thing about self-hosted auth is that you don’t even need it to be persistently online. There are use cases for it, but none that are essential. For the fundamental act of logging into places, your self-hosted auth only needs to come online whenever you are trying to access an online space that asks for your authentication. |
An OIDC provider like https://github.com/sebadob/rauthy by @sebadob could be a good fit for this type of dual setup, since it comes with its own UI. The AGPL complicates the possibilities for direct coupling/bundling though. |
I already talked to @erlend-sh and in case of Rauthy and I am not fully sold on the license yet. It may become more open with an Apache or MIT. With the v0.17 now, I got most of the stuff ready, that I wanted to have in case of features. I am about 1-2 minor versions away from having it "complete" before I can think about a v1.0.0 RC |
Binary distribution (i.e. a potential Kitsune installer that installs and configures And it's actually funny that you mention licensing talk, because technically we also haven't fully reached consensus yet on whether we want to stay with the current MIT license or migrate to a different, potentially more restrictive, license (well, "restrictive" is a rather harsh word. Let's say "copyleft license") |
@erlend-sh it would be great if you have a more concrete description of the deeper integration you would like to see between Or do you mean something else? |
Frankly, I don't know exactly what I mean yet 😆 The emergence of Rauthy has got me rethinking some of my preconceptions about identity in the fediverse. I'm trying to imagine how the fediverse model of identity could change if we relegate the fediverse instance to a second-order identity manager as opposed to first-order, primary identity manager. Here's an approximation of what I'd like:
The persistent granting of access might depend on DPoP:
..which has been implemented in Rauthy: sebadob/rauthy#132 Reframed in the context of Solid interop here. Solid is not a prerequisite for any of this to work though. The storage layer could just as well be built directly on top of Rauthy, or a lighter protocol like Solid-lite. |
Muddling through with some additional context here:
But really all of this boils down to the MVP flow detailed in the comment above, wherein I want to:
|
https://subconscious.substack.com/p/the-minimal-definition-of-user-agency
I wonder if it’s possible to accomplish this in a way that doesn’t require #190 upfront.
Just having
..would already be a minimal version of ID ownership.
The usage of a domain ID by an apub server just needs to be something that can be revoked, I.e. by not having your DNS be pointing there any longer. Could be reinforced further by mastodon/mastodon#24066
Minimally owning ones content and contacts is just a matter of having these backed up in a third party storage (like Noosphere or Solid), right?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: