<?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[Topics tagged with cavage-12]]></title><description><![CDATA[A list of topics that have been tagged with cavage-12]]></description><link>https://board.circlewithadot.net/tags/cavage-12</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 22:28:16 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://board.circlewithadot.net/tags/cavage-12.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Invalid Date</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Re: @peertube&#x2F;http-signature]]></title><description><![CDATA[@chocobozzz@framapiaf.org I have a question for you... I'm seeing in Are we HS2019 yet? that Peertube and Misskey both use your package: @peertube/http-signature
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.
For a variety of reasons, but mainly to avoid NIH, I'd consider switching to a dependency.
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?
I suppose, same question re: double-knocking.
]]></description><link>https://board.circlewithadot.net/topic/11cf189f-d6e3-4423-a91e-8fd23eea14a5/re-@peertube-http-signature</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://board.circlewithadot.net/topic/11cf189f-d6e3-4423-a91e-8fd23eea14a5/re-@peertube-http-signature</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[julian@activitypub.space]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Invalid Date</pubDate></item></channel></rss>