Skip to content

Conversation

@turt2live
Copy link
Member

@turt2live turt2live commented Dec 21, 2024

Rendered


Disclosure: I am Director of Standards Development at The Matrix.org Foundation C.I.C., Matrix Spec Core Team (SCT) member, employed by Element, and operate the t2bot.io service. This proposal is written and published under my Director of Standards Development hat, with a focus on interoperability between existing systems.


This proposal is a WIP, but opened early for collaboration on the problem space.


Depends on:

@turt2live turt2live changed the title MSC: RFC 9420 MLS for Matrix [WIP] MSC4244: RFC 9420 MLS for Matrix Dec 21, 2024
@turt2live turt2live added e2e proposal A matrix spec change proposal client-server Client-Server API 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 Dec 21, 2024
Comment on lines +192 to +193
sending device must first retrieve a KeyPackage from one of the target user's devices. The first to
respond with a suitable KeyPackage is the device which will act as the 'invited' device, and can add
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

any abuse potential?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

there's always abuse potential :p

what concerns are you thinking of here?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm not to firm in the details of comparable parts in current Matrix at this time, but actually regardless I was thinking of spam/DOS potential when not implementing this carefully enough.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

spam/DOS to who though? KeyPackages are essentially just one-time keys, and treated accordingly.

@nyabinary
Copy link

Is there any difference between this and #4256

@ara4n
Copy link
Member

ara4n commented Feb 3, 2025

yes. #4256 proposes storing all state in MLS, removing state resolution, and removing the sender field from events. It's effectively a much more aggressive approach, much more dependent on MLS, whereas #4244 is closer to today's Matrix. The SCT is working through comparing them currently.

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

Labels

client-server Client-Server API e2e 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

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants