Evan Prodromou

The correct type for all of these properties, `inbox`, `outbox`, etc. is either in-line or an URI. I agree that the language is confusing. I think this should be documented...

As per this and #349 , the text of the non-normative note is incorrect. I've created an erratum which says: In section 5.7, in the non-normative note, the description of...

This is an interesting topic, for a number of reasons. It's probably good for our standard to have some flexibility and upgradeability for other lower-level protocols. I'd compare using WebSocket...

Barring new suggestions, I think the next step with this is to make a FEP, so I will close the issue.

Worth noting that a solution like [CBOR](https://cbor.io/) may be a better fit for a JSON-based vocabulary like Activity Streams 2.0.

I've added a [proposed erratum](https://www.w3.org/wiki/ActivityPub_errata/Proposed) with the following text: > Section 6.11 should read, Federated servers SHOULD perform delivery on all Activities posted to the outbox according to > outbox...

Wow! This is some interesting specification archaeology. As far as I can tell, these two properties were added to support an old version from 2016 of Linked Data Signatures for...

@cwebber do you remember what happened with these properties? Any guesses for example code that uses them?

I did a massive GitHub search and didn't find a satisfying usage https://github.com/search?q=provideClientKey&type=code

So, an `Actor` is anything that can generate activities and that might be addressed in activities. As the spec says: > ActivityPub actors are generally one of the [ActivityStreams Actor...