> Which parts of the system (provider, hub, subscriber) need to know the guid > and/or timestamp for each thing?
I could be wrong, but the provider should either have or generate them, the hub *may* use them for idempotency in the case of "fat pings" (hate that phrase, but is the language used around here) but certainly doesn't need them, and then the subscriber *should* use them for the same reason. -jeff > -- > John Panzer / Google > [email protected] / abstractioneer.org / @jpanzer > > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Jeff Lindsay <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> To summarize the problem from my understanding: Atom comes with unique >> IDs/dates for each entry. Arbitrary payloads would have to put it in >> the headers. Then signing (as proposed in the header) would have to >> somehow include that to be useful against replays. >> >> I thought about it and I feel like we might be able to come up with >> something, but, you know, if you're doing arbitrary payloads you might >> already have this in your body! I think the burden of putting a unique >> ID in your payload is much easier than telling your users they have to >> use HTTPS (even though I agree everybody should be using it). >> >> -jeff >> >> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 2:42 PM, Brett Slatkin <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Good discussion. Separating distribution from semantics is a >> > worthwhile goal. Probably the easiest goal to achieve, too. >> > >> > I banged my head against this problem a few months ago. Where I left >> > off was that we need a solution to the HTTP "turducken" problem. Can >> > you guys go over this thread for me? >> > >> > >> > http://groups.google.com/group/pubsubhubbub/browse_thread/thread/6bb4b26043059f27?pli=1 >> > >> > Am I wrong to think we even need to solve this? >> > >> > -Brett >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Alexis Richardson <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Charl van Niekerk >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 12:02 -0800, Jeff Lindsay wrote: >> >>>> Yes, this is where I'm at, too. It seems like we're getting there >> >>>> though. It just seems like (and I could be wrong!) there is a lot of >> >>>> bias towards Atom/feed semantics. Even the tiniest structure is a >> >>>> constraint to use cases and adoption. That's all I'm saying. Also >> >>>> just >> >>>> the marketing. Is it about feeds or is it a distribution framework? >> >>>> Because it sounds like the former and that's what people think that I >> >>>> talk to and they decide it's not worth messing with. >> >>> >> >>> Same here, Atom feeds were obviously the most logical place to start >> >>> and >> >>> would have the greatest short-term impact on the web as it stands but >> >>> to >> >>> have to reinvent the wheel for other formats is kinda ridiculous. >> >>> Would >> >>> be awesome to see PubSubHubbub become a more generic distribution >> >>> framework and be marketed as such! >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Jeff Lindsay >> http://progrium.com > > -- Jeff Lindsay http://progrium.com
