All my newly added test cases failed, that movq thankfully provided in https://git.mills.io/yarnsocial/twtxt.dev/pulls/28#issuecomment-20801 for the draft of the twt hash v2 extension. The first error was easy to see in the diff. The hashes were way too long. You’ve already guessed it, I had cut the hash from the twelfth character towards the end instead of taking the first twelve characters: hash[12:] instead of hash[:12].

After fixing this rookie mistake, the tests still all failed. Hmmm. Did I still cut the wrong twelve characters? :-? I even checked the Go reference implementation in the document itself. But it read basically the same as mine. Strange, what the heck is going on here?

Turns out that my vim replacements to transform the Python code into Go code butchered all the URLs. ;-) The order of operations matters. I first replaced the equals with colons for the subtest struct fields and then wanted to transform the RFC 3339 timestamp strings to time.Date(…) calls. So, I replaced the colons in the time with commas and spaces. Hence, my URLs then also all read https, //example.com/twtxt.txt.

But that was it. All test green. \o/

Nobody writes emails by hand using RFC 5322 anymore, nor do we manually send them through telnet and SMTP commands. The days of crafting emails in raw format and dialing into servers are long gone. Modern email clients and services handle it all seamlessly in the background, making email easier than ever to send and receive—without needing to understand the protocols or formats behind it! #Email #SMTP #RFC #Automation

thanks @prologic!
@bender the idea of the RFC was to reach an agreement on a difficult problem, receiving proposals, and the voting is a simple count to gauge the sentiment of “is this a problem worth to be fixed?, are we committed to implement a change in our clients?”

But that’s a fair point. What do the community expect? What do y’all expect?

TIL that RFC means Request For Comments

Hi everyone,
I’ve drafted a Request for Comments (RFC) to improve how threads work in twtxt:
https://git.mills.io/yarnsocial/twtxt.dev/issues/18

I’d love your feedback! Please share your thoughts on anything that could be better explained, check if the proposed dates work for everyone, and I invite you to join the discussion…

i always thought that i needed geodns to make a multi-region setup work at all, but it turns out all we really need is one rfc https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8305 and its not even rare to see implemented on clients

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org agree on the HTTP stuff. I mean we could mention that for optimization see RFC yadda yadda should be followed for caching. but not have it part of the spec proper.

Aujourd’hui, petits changements de formatage de mes documents sur le style RFC. Le titre apparaît désormais au centre et en haut de page. On a aussi la date de rédaction suivie de la date de dernière mise à jour. Que c’est beau :)

Note pour plus tard : se documenter sur les ADR architectural décision records. En complément des RFC, élaboration collaborative, l’ADR trace les décisions.

Line Length Limits “SHOULD be no more than 78 characters, excluding the CRLF” https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt

@prologic@twtxt.net Unfortunately the RFC’s are a bit light in this regard. While it makes mention of different kinds of accounts like mailto: or status services.. it never combines them. It does make mention of using redirects to forward a request to other webfingers to provide additional detail.

I am kinda partial to using salty:acct:me@sour.is, yarn:acct:xuu@txt.sour.is, mailto:me@sour.is that could redirect to a specific service. and a parent account acct:me@sour.is that would reference them in some way. either in properties or aliases.

@bml@twtxt.net Yup, several. My favorite is RFC 1149, another that’s since been implemented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Fools%27_Day_Request_for_Comments

interesting RFC dated April 1st, 1998: Hyper Text Coffee Pot Control Protocol (HTCPCP/1.0):

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2324

looking at the date this was published, i think the authors originally meant this as an apil’s fool joke/prank.

funny because now we have IOTs and this is somewhat a reality today :P

@xuu@txt.sour.is Not too happy with WKD’s use of CNAME over SRV for discovery of openpgpkey.. That breaks using SNI pretty quick. I suppose it was setup as a temporary workaround anyhow in the RFC..