Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

MSC3757: Restricting who can overwrite a state event #3757

Open
wants to merge 38 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

MSC3757: Restricting who can overwrite a state event #3757

wants to merge 38 commits into from

Conversation

andybalaam
Copy link
Member

@andybalaam andybalaam commented Mar 25, 2022 •
edited by AndrewFerr
Loading

@andybalaam andybalaam changed the title Restricting who can overwrite a state event MSC3757: Restricting who can overwrite a state event Mar 25, 2022
@turt2live turt2live added requires-room-version An idea which will require a bump in room version proposal-in-review proposal A matrix spec change proposal s2s Server-to-Server API (federation) client-server Client-Server API unassigned-room-version Remove this label when things get versioned. kind:core MSC which is critical to the protocol's success needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. labels Mar 25, 2022
@gleachkr

This comment was marked as duplicate.

Sign in to view
ShadowJonathan
ShadowJonathan approved these changes Mar 30, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@ShadowJonathan ShadowJonathan left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One nit, else this looks sound.

proposals/3757-restricting-who-can-overwrite-a-state-event.md Show resolved Hide resolved
andybalaam and others added 5 commits March 31, 2022 11:44
@andybalaam @anoadragon453
Clarify wording of comment
bfde329 
Co-authored-by: Andrew Morgan <1342360+anoadragon453@users.noreply.github.com>
@andybalaam @turt2live
Add unstable room version
344e876 
Co-authored-by: Travis Ralston <travisr@matrix.org>
@andybalaam
Note that this requires a new room version
ccb7e52
@andybalaam
Refer to MSC3760 as an alternative
1ce7e0e
@andybalaam
Re-word link to MSC3760
6df6109
@jplatte jplatte mentioned this pull request Apr 4, 2022
Closed
@AndrewFerr
Add alternative of field for non-state events
63955d7
@AndrewFerr
Clarify state subkey/array relevance to user IDs
07d784a
@AndrewFerr
Fix formatting of auth rule's numeric list
99698ef
@AndrewFerr
Rephrase the current restrictions on state events
9f4f31a
@AndrewFerr
Better explain limitations of current restrictions
75f03da 
Highlight that the current restrictions prevent being able to set
multiple state events of the same type with exclusive write access
@AndrewFerr
Reword and reformat
e833e8a 
- Use assertive language
- Limit lines to ~100 characters
- Improve consistency of terms
@AndrewFerr
Remove redundant explanation for separating with _
a4b40b5 
as it is already discussed in two other sections
@AndrewFerr
Scope proposal to a future room version
a0da59b
@mscbot
Copy link
Collaborator

mscbot commented Oct 7, 2024

That concern has already been raised.

@clokep
Copy link
Member

clokep commented Oct 7, 2024

@mscbot resolve Does not work with all MXIDs

@mscbot concern Alternatives insufficient explored.

@mscbot
Copy link
Collaborator

mscbot commented Oct 7, 2024

That concern has already been raised.

@AndrewFerr
Copy link
Member

@mscbot concern Alternatives insufficient explored.

deba3b82..e16482ab re-examines the alternative of the m.peer_unwritable flag.

@turt2live
Copy link
Member

This proposal requires re-review from several SCT members and adjacent folks. The priority is a bit unclear to me, but that is a different problem (see room).

@clokep
Copy link
Member

clokep commented Dec 10, 2024

On the Apache voting scale, I'm at a -1.0 for how the MSC is currently written. A stronger rationale for why this is needed now and strong discounting of a top-level ACL structure would change this to a -0.9 (sorry, I'm just not in favour of string packing here).

This is still the crux of this proposal and I'm in agreement with @turt2live that I'm a -1 for the string packing.

@clokep clokep removed their request for review December 10, 2024 20:09
@AndrewFerr
Copy link
Member

Maybe it's worth having a new MSC to explore one of the top-level field alternatives:

@clokep
Copy link
Member

clokep commented Dec 10, 2024

Maybe it's worth having a new MSC to explore one of the top-level field alternatives:

* [Event ownership flag](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/blob/andybalaam/owner-state-events/proposals/3757-restricting-who-can-overwrite-a-state-event.md?rgh-link-date=2024-12-10T20%3A16%3A47Z#event-ownership-flag)

* [Owning user ID field](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/blob/andybalaam/owner-state-events/proposals/3757-restricting-who-can-overwrite-a-state-event.md?rgh-link-date=2024-12-10T20%3A16%3A47Z#owning-user-id-field)

Maybe MSC3760 or MSC3779 was supposed to be that? (3760 appears to be very similar to this.)

@andybalaam
Copy link
Member Author

Maybe MSC3760 or MSC3779 was supposed to be that? (3760 appears to be very similar to this.)

Yes, MSC3760 was an alternative without string-packing. MSC3779 is different: it is intended to allow low-power users to create these state events.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@erikjohnston erikjohnston erikjohnston left review comments

@gleachkr gleachkr gleachkr left review comments

@tulir tulir tulir left review comments

@dkasak dkasak dkasak left review comments

@MTRNord MTRNord MTRNord left review comments

@toger5 toger5 toger5 left review comments

@ara4n ara4n ara4n left review comments

@Johennes Johennes Johennes left review comments

@uhoreg uhoreg uhoreg left review comments

@jplatte jplatte jplatte left review comments

@clokep clokep clokep left review comments

@deepbluev7 deepbluev7 deepbluev7 left review comments

@anoadragon453 anoadragon453 anoadragon453 left review comments

@AndrewFerr AndrewFerr AndrewFerr left review comments

@ShadowJonathan ShadowJonathan ShadowJonathan approved these changes

@turt2live turt2live Awaiting requested review from turt2live

@kegsay kegsay Awaiting requested review from kegsay

@richvdh richvdh Awaiting requested review from richvdh

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
client-server Client-Server API disposition-merge kind:core MSC which is critical to the protocol's success needs-implementation This MSC does not have a qualifying implementation for the SCT to review. The MSC cannot enter FCP. proposal A matrix spec change proposal proposed-final-comment-period Currently awaiting signoff of a majority of team members in order to enter the final comment period. requires-room-version An idea which will require a bump in room version s2s Server-to-Server API (federation) unassigned-room-version Remove this label when things get versioned. unresolved-concerns This proposal has at least one outstanding concern
Projects
Spec Core Team Backlog
Status: Ready for FCP ticks
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.