12
PeerTube.wtf did not federate my comment (was "Three sided PeerTube federation seems to have problems") Solved (piefed.zip)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/piefed_meta@piefed.social
13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

or I don't understand something

There is a video https://peertube.wtf/w/eSYuduJSbZ9s7K4pFT3Ncd
To which I added a comment to another comment https://piefed.zip/post/457008#comment_1379964
17 hours later it still did not federate to peertube.wtf

What am I missing here? Is there some disconnect between PieFed.zip and tube.tchncs.de for example?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

It appears to be specific to replies to replies - this video on peertube.wtf has a top-level comment from PieFed.

PeerTube's federation model is different from Lemmy's - they don't sign remote comments when they federate them out again, so it's often up to other instances to fetch them from the source. It might be that PieFed has to do something to help the likes of peertube.wtf successfully retrieve a comment when it's a reply to another reply.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    @framasoft@lemmy.world any chance to have you take a look? Is that how comments on comments on Peertube work or this is a problem between instances?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    You mean that the problem might be that peertube.wtf should have asked tilvids.com about all comments of comments?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    No, I was suggesting that peertube.wtf should have asked piefed.zip for the details of the comment. That would be the most authoritative place to ask, and that's what PieFed, MBIN, and Friendica do.

    For the comment that you made, piefed.zip would've signed it with your private key, and sent out 2 copies - one to technics.de and one to tilvids.com. After receiving it, technics.de is no longer involved, but tilvids.com would've sent to comment out to all the subscribers of 'The Linux Experiment'. We can tell they did in fact do that, because the comment you made on piefed.zip is visible on piefed.social.

    It doesn't have your private key though, and it additionally doesn't sign it with the channel's private key, so the question is then not 'was the data sent out?', but rather 'how do remote instances know to trust that this comment was actually made by this person?'. If the author was also on tilvids.com, then it has access to the private key, so it can be signed when it's sent out. If the author was from Mastodon, their comments include a cryptographic hash inside the JSON, so that can be used. For all other authors, the best thing to do - I would think - is grab it from the source.

    I don't actually know what other PeerTube instances do in this circumstance though. Comparing the amount of comments on the host instance, vs. other PeerTube instances, vs. PieFed, reveals no discernible pattern. For 'The Linux Experiment', piefed.social has comments from misskey, from piefed, and from mbin that are absent from remote PeerTube instances. Hopefully, someone who's familiar with their code can shed more light on their internal federation - if there's something we can do to guarantee comment visibility on remote PeerTube instances, then we'll do it if it's feasible.

    EDIT: just been digging through my server logs for requests of comments I made from PeerTube instances, and discovered tube.alphonso.fr - they have your comment: https://tube.alphonso.fr/w/eSYuduJSbZ9s7K4pFT3Ncd - so how fully PeerTube instances federate comments might be a policy decision that admins set, or it might just be buggy behaviour.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent