@renchap@oisaur.com how does RFC9421 differ from Mastodon's existing support for HTTP Signatures? Does this mean you're moving away from cavage-12? That's important to know, and if you're looking for an implementor to handle double-knocking, that is something I can put together for you.. we don't do it at current.

Although for tests we are still using 18 and 20 https://github.com/NodeBB/NodeBB/blob/develop/.github/workflows/test.yaml#L30

@melroy@kbin.melroy.org NodeBB here, agreed. It really is the most succinct nickname to describe the type of software we are... and I feel that outweighs possible association with Threads.

@dansup@mastodon.social no, NodeBB v4 always reports activitypub in protocols, even if disabled. I can update that so it's dependent on the global switch, but it's still possible to have AP enabled but not have any categories federating. I'm just wondering whether FediDB found the forums because content got federated, or whether there was some proactive nodeinfo crawling, that's all. cc @jaz@mastodon.iftas.org

I think the FEP process is overly complicated for what it is, but it's definitely helpful if you have multiple implementors on board. The easiest (but least accessible) solution is to document something on your own site, but that lacks the social proof that a finalized FEP has. Just some food for thought I'm looking to create an FEP for cross posting and would love to get the entire threadiverse dev community involved.

@projectmoon@forum.agnos.is thanks, can you try again? For whatever reason the handle-to-cid association was lost, and I'm not sure why. I've manually restored it now.

Topic hash is topic: plus the topic id. e.g. the database entry for this one is: topic:13608.