Events Interoperability: Validation, minimum requirements, common extensions

[silverpill]

@andre

Not using as:attributedTo makes sense when having fep/fep/c7d3/fep-c7d3.md at main - fediverse/fep - Codeberg.org in mind, as it assumes the attributedTo being a single actor (the FEP could be even more clear in language on this, in my opinion).

FEP-c7d3 is a work in progress, and it will probably move away from relying on attributedTo for authentication. But there might be other reasons to put a single actor there. For example, which actor should be in actor field of Offer activity? I think it should match Event.attributedTo.

@andre

@silverpill as you authored two FEPs targeting proofs I would really like to get your opinion on this, too!

I think signed Accept(Offer) activity can be used as a proof. You can attach a collection of those to your Event as Event.organizersAccepted, and everyone who views the Event will be able to verify that specified organizers are consenting.

Alternatively, Event.organizersAccepted may contain only activity IDs to be fetched. In this case Accept activities don’t need to be signed.

[naturzukunft]

Do i see that right, nobody really talked about addressCountry like that?

The spec says:

The country. Recommended to be in 2-letter ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 format, for example “US”. For backward compatibility, a 3-letter ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country code such as “SGP” or a full country name such as “Singapore” can also be used.

I am of the opinion that this should also be mentioned in the fep !