@[email protected] @by_[email protected] since tel: is extremely fraught, especially nowadays with insane phone spam etc, a Signal/WhatsApp/etc address might be a good alternative example?
I particularly like the "established encrypted messenger" example because the wf->[rel=messenger]-> lookup could get Fedi encrypted DMs "for free."
(obviously lots I'm glossing over that make it more complicated, but in theory it'd be less complicated than many alternatives)
@by_caballero @trwnh so _in theory_ PSTN operators could provide a lookup system, but it'd be jank af at best, and more likely it would be a horrendous unfixable security disaster.
@by_caballero @trwnh this would work except for the specific way that number portability is implemented. 😅 At least historically, and very likely still today, the "database" used to map phone numbers as assigned by exchange blocks (i.e., to a given carrier) to phone numbers that have been ported to a different carrier by the customer (under number portability laws) was a set of spreadsheets synchronized by FTP at intervals. Access to said "databases" is entirely contractual.
@[email protected] oh, totally. To be clear, the way I imagine it is that to end users, it all looks like a single identity, and which feed/stream is negotiated based on the context you're using the identity. So, e.g., my main public profile might be "[email protected]", and if someone tried to follow me on mastodon, they'd get my "short text notes" stream, and if someone else tried to follow me from pixelfed they'd get my "square format insta-like-social photos" stream.
@[email protected] for sure; lots of ways to deal with the phone number lookup thing, but "security is hard" in that context 😅
aside: I did a little work a couple of years ago on a thing I was calling "NNS" (the "Name Name System") around how we might use modern cryptographic assertions to step back from the relatively "centralized" mode of DNS (and by proxy, webfinger and atproto's approach), but then IPFS etc imploded and the funding/interest dried up. There are some similar efforts out there, too.
@trwnh .. and *critically* for what I think you're saying, there's nothing preventing linking from a webfinger profile to e.g. a wiki or a webpage of any sort, or another identifier like a phone number or a signal account. Again, this is all stuff that informed the original design of webfinger, over 15 years ago now 🙈
@[email protected] lolsob. This is/was the whole point of webfinger ("It's DNS, for people") but the mastodon implementation kind of missed that part. But it's trivially possible to do that.
My ideal is to have one "personal address" [per life context, e.g., work, family, social, etc] that points to different stuff I'm sharing in different contexts, with tagging to indicate in which contexts it the various feeds/etc might be useful. e.g., a tech-focused mastodon feed, a pixelfed feed for family, etc.
@[email protected] yup! My long-standing argument is that "jesus of nazareth" is the same thing in a social context as an email address / webfinger address, and that "[person] in [context]" is something that's seared into how we do social cognition, whether it's "[name] [family name]" or "[family name] [name]" – i.e., the format per se doesn't matter so much as the recognition that names-for-humans are different from http-style links with e.g. paths and query strings, etc.
@trwnh the "trick" with webfinger is that it's a way to go from a "name" to an authoritative context (the authority for "[email protected]"' is "y.xyz" and the authority for "blah.com" is "blah.com"; the challenge with phone numbers is that it's impossible to infer the authority for +1-416-867-5309 / telcos don't provide a lookup system). That's really it; the rest is a cultural thing.
@[email protected] fun fact, webfinger actually supports URLs and [in theory] phone numbers!
The key (and this is a social science and cultural insight, not technical) is that when you ask someone's "name" or "address" they need something that's unambiguous, personal, and opaque in the sense that it works everywhere (online / distributed, it needs to be globally unique, too) or they won't use it.
Bare domains aren't ideal because (1) they're expensive and (2) management is hard.
@[email protected] (useful stubs, and important, hard things to agree on – I don't want to diminish the work of folks on those aspects in any way! Just that I hope we don't limit our imaginations based on the standards of today)
@[email protected] @by_[email protected] (one thing to note is that it's not possible to declare an alias, e.g. a phone number in a wf or other profile, and then use that alias in reverse as a way to look up the original profile. I mean, one could do it, but with questions of identity at play it would be an incredibly very extremely bad idea to do that from every conceivable security perspective.)