Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | _raz's commentslogin

an outage yesterday related to cloudflare for them

https://x.com/opencode/status/2082264221887111444


Thanks, very nice! A very explanatory write-up


A RPC standard that plays nicely with LLMs?


I had to take a break from extending, our go LLM wrapper, https://github.com/modfin/bellman with mcp to write the blog entry. So some sort of server-like-thing will be added soon


Idk, I'm kind of agnostic and ended up throwing it in there.

Regurgitating the OAuth draft don't seem that usefull imho, and why am I forced into it if I'm using http. Seems like there are plenty of usecases where un-attended thing would like to interact over http, where we usually use other things aside from OAuth.

It all probably could have been replaced by

- The Client shall implement OAuth2 - The Server may implement OAuth2


For local servers this doesn't matter as much. For remote servers - you won't really have any serious MCP servers without auth, and you want to have some level setting done between client and servers. OAuth 2.1 is a good middle ground.

That's also where, with the new spec, you don't actually need to implement anything from scratch. Server issues a 401 with WWW-Authenticate, pointing to metadata for authorization server locations. Client takes that and does discovery, followed by OAuth flow (clients can use many libraries for that). You don't need to implement your own OAuth server.


Bearer tokens work elsewhere and imho are drastically simpler than oauth


But where would you get bearer tokens? How would you manage consent and scopes? What about revocation? OAuth is essentially the "engine" that gives you the bearer tokens you need for authorization.


Once I published the blog post, I ended up doing a similar thing the other day. https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/modelcontextprotocol...

From reading your issue, I'm not holding my breath.

It all kind of seems too important to fuck up


In the grand scheme of things I think we are still very early. MCP might be the thing which is why I'd rather try and contribute if I can; it does have a grassroots movement I haven't seen in a while. But the wonderful thing about the market is that incentives, e.g. good customer experiences that people pay for, will probably win. This means that MCP, if it remains the focal point for this sort of work, will become a lot better regardless of whether or not early pokes and prods by folks like us are successful or not. :)


Kind of my fear exactly. We are moving so fast and that mcp would create an accept a transport protocol that might take years or decades to get rid off for something better.

Kind of reminds me of the browser wars during 90s where everyone tried to run the fastest an created splits in standards and browsers what we didn't really det rid of for a good 20 year or more. IE11 was around for far to long


I think that transport is a non-issue.

Whatever the transport evolves to, it is easy to create proxies that convert from one transport to another, e.g. https://github.com/punkpeye/mcp-proxy

As an example, every server that you see on Glama MCP registry today is hosted using stdio. However, the proxy makes them available over SSE, and could theoretically make them available over WS, 'streamable HTTP', etc

Glama is just one example of doing this, but I think that other registries/tools will emerge that will effectively make the transport the server chooses to implement irrelevant.


Do you think WebTransport and HTTP3 could provide better alternatives for transport?


Well put


Glad to here, also thought I was alone :)


toml-rpc anyone? :)


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: