For anyone else like me who struggled to find the full proposal text, here it is:
And the prime objective of the FEP is summed up pretty well here:
Unbundle the services and concerns of a typical instance
- Sign everything: Recognize client-side cryptographic signatures as proof of authorship (by implementing FEP-8b32: Object Integrity Proofs), in addition to the current practice of relying solely on the instance URL.
- B.Y.O. Actor ID: Using Object Integrity proofs enables Identity Hosting to be separated from the other instance concerns. Actor profiles can now be hosted separately from the instance (including as a static JSON object on a personal website), which in turn enables service providers to offer their users a “BYO (Bring Your Own) domain name” feature.
- Separate Inbox/Outbox: (Optional) The previous steps enable message transfer and Inbox/Outbox hosting to be outsourced to separate service providers (the Actor profile links to these in the usual manner).
- Separate Object and Collection hosting: (Optional) Similarly, AP Objects and Collections can now be stored on domains separate from the Actor’s domain (since authorship and controller-ship can be proven cryptographically, in a domain-independent way). This enables the user to migrate storage service providers without having to change their Actor ID.
‘B.Y.O. Actor ID’ seems like a game-changer. If I understand it correctly, it’s really all I ever needed from the notion of a ‘single-user instance’. All I want to manage on my own is my identity; I don’t want to take on the full burden of managing a whole AP server.
In this paradigm, someone’s WordPress site could also be their Actor-ID Provider, and nothing more. That ID could in turn be used to as a (reasonably nomadic) account on any FEP-7952 compatible instance. Right?