<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Re: @peertube&#x2F;http-signature]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a href="https://activitypub.space/user/chocobozzz%40framapiaf.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow ugc">@chocobozzz@framapiaf.org</a> I have a question for you... I'm seeing in <a href="https://arewehs2019yet.vpzom.click/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer nofollow ugc">Are we HS2019 yet?</a> that Peertube and Misskey both use your package: @peertube/http-signature</p>
<p dir="auto">NodeBB currently rolls its own cavage-12 support but and I did some preliminary research into updating to the latest HTTP Signatures draft, but quickly got overwhelmed.</p>
<p dir="auto">For a variety of reasons, but mainly to avoid NIH, I'd consider switching to a dependency.</p>
<p dir="auto">My question is: does your library support verification for non-hs2019 signatures, or will I need to invoke your library in front, and fall back to existing cavage-12 verification otherwise?</p>
<p dir="auto">I suppose, same question re: double-knocking.</p>
]]></description><link>https://citiverse.it/topic/dba6c482-80c2-4019-9734-add26ac97e42/re-@peertube-http-signature</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 23:37:34 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://citiverse.it/topic/dba6c482-80c2-4019-9734-add26ac97e42.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 17:24:32 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl></channel></rss>